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.
Buddha's Discourses On God and the Absolute?
Transmetaphysical
Veteran
I've been searching through suttas to find passages or discourses where Buddha talks about God and the absolute.
I know that when people asked him, he would respond in silence, but he did have things to say on the matter. For example, I read that he considered concepts of Brahman and the Absolute as a Reification Fallacy, however, I want to know where he said this and what his exact words were.
If you can, feel free to post suttas and sutras that may shed light on the matter. Thanks.
I know that when people asked him, he would respond in silence, but he did have things to say on the matter. For example, I read that he considered concepts of Brahman and the Absolute as a Reification Fallacy, however, I want to know where he said this and what his exact words were.
If you can, feel free to post suttas and sutras that may shed light on the matter. Thanks.
0
Comments
Brahman and Absolute fall into the category of eternalism. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Kaccanagota Sutta calls eternalism the "idea of existence". Thanissaro's translation just calls it "existence". In other suttas it may have other names; "joy in being", "joy in becoming", etc. It depends on the translator.
Great Brahma is the supreme God of all gods. A Bhikshu went in search of an answer to a question. He asked all the gods below Great Brahma and they did not know. When he asked Great Brahma the same question, he finally admitted (quietly) that he did not know. God suggested he go back and ask Buddha, who did know.
Yeah, I was reading that Sutta earlier today and it actually seemed like it belittled "the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be." (quote from Kevatta Sutta of Digha Nikaya)
In that Sutta, the Bhikshu asked Great Brahma (omnipotent God) a question about the nature of reality and he did not know. However, Buddha knew the answer, and thus displayed superiority over the "Great All-Seeing, All-Powerful, Sovereign Lord, Creator."
How could this be if Buddha is a mere mortal? Perhaps there is a subtle indication that this Brahma isn't so great afterall and demoted the idea of God altogether.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html
.
The story at the end recapitulates the structure of the sutta. The sutta starts with a long section that describes various types of superhuman miracles, and concludes by explaining why receiving instruction in the Buddha-dharma is the greatest miracle of all. The first, longest part of the story describes a monk's miraculous communication with a lot of different gods in an attempt to get an answer to a question, and concludes with the monk getting his question answered by a human teacher. The point of the story is not the question the monk asks, but the futility of relying on anything superhuman for liberation.
:O Wow, nicely put. Thanks for clarifying this, I was having a bit of trouble understanding that passage.
.
I believe that the Gods in Buddhist metaphysics are subject to cycles of samsara just as all other beings are, their lives are just much, much, longer. Equivalent to something like 60,000 or 80,000 culpas. They live in a state so comfortable that they don't experience enough suffering to drive them to seek enlightenment, instead simply burning through their good karma until it runs out and they get sent back to a lower realm. So while the Buddha was a man and not a God, he had gained supreme right view, obtained enlightenment, and escaped the cycle of samsara, which the gods would not have achieved.
I know. I wasn't really asking that. It was a rhetorical question. Also, Brahman isn't the same as the other million gods. Brahman (as depicted in the Sutta) is the monotheistic, eternal, all-powerful, God. And yet, Buddha had superior knowledge and insight. And thus, the Sutta presents a paradox. One that I particularly like, and that is the belittlement and mockery of the idea of God.
.
Doesn't seem very nice of you.
Lol. That came out wrong. I just like the way that it points out the philosophical absurdity of the God concept.
.
Hehe, I wonder if it came out right
I came from the Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens school of thought and I find that religion is a tool to keep people down and stops people from thinking for themselves.
.
No, that's football.
In all seriousness, religion can be what you said, it can also be the medium for some pretty profound insights. Seriously though, Dawkins??
Its no wonder then why you so passionately work to attack it!
With warmth,
Matt
The only problem I have with Dawkins is that he is so belittling of other people. Even those who are new to his point of view. I fail to understand why someone of ANY point of view needs to be so insulting and negative to others who hold different views. It is highly unskillful and can surely only serve to increase negative karma and/or negative rebirths.
Respectfully,
Raven
In my experience its because there is a lack of understanding of either subjective levels of understanding, or subjective levels of intelligence. Either way, immature minds tend to think "well, I can see this, so if they can't, they're BLANK" where the blank is some sort of static projection of a belief.
Unless you were venting like "they shouldn't behave that way" in which I say: shrug, they do.
With warmth,
Matt
Thanks for clarifying that.
So even in Hinduism, the great Brahma deity is below the infinite, impersonal Brahman.
.
I have heard Hitchens in a few debates. He is just anti religion. His favourite target are Muslim suicide bombers. Mass manipulation is not unique to religion but is found in any ideology. Politics is just as quilty. For example, 20 million chinese died as a result of Mao zedong's great leap forward. This would not have happened without manipulation and repression. It is driven by greed and power. Do not blame religion.
1) The existence of God - When there are conflict in rules, and if god exist wouldn't the views of such a being matter? I imagine this being carries a big stick.
2)Whether the universe began - When faced with finite regress, one has to address the beginning of things e.g. karmic origin
3)The end of the universe - Meaning has context and finitude changes meaning.
How are these questions not relevant in the context of Buddhism?
He doesn't blame religion for political genocide. In fact, he doesn't even focus too much on the effects of religion, but rather the philosophical doctrines themselves. He attacks Biblical theology. To think that he simply blames violence on religion rather than look at the root, is false. His main focus is the root of unsound, and sometimes dangerous philosophies.
.
Which rules? 'If' is the big word. Establish this first. This is pure speculation. Verify the existence first, then the nature.
Why?
What good would that do you, Now?
To what end?
How would what happened in an incalculably far distant time, impact you as you drive to work or eat your sandwich, now? if you die before it happens, then you have no cause to worry.
if you die as it happens, then you have no cause to worry.
How are they relevant to Buddhism and your practice right Now?
That's Buddha's way of addressing the issue.
As in the Kevatta Sutta that was posted above, the Sutta belittled Great Brahma, the omnipotent, creator God, because he did not know the answer to a question about the nature of reality. However, Buddha, a mortal man, did!
The questions of metaphysics is one of the reasons I love Buddhism, even when it refuses to acknowledge such questions. :P
.
(You will be assimilated.)
I've been on this planet for 53 years. I spent 40-odd years of that in the RC faith. I have books, encyclopaedias, literature, the internet and many other sources of information at my disposal. In all that time, nothing ever surfaced to make me believe absolutely 100% that God is existent. The more I find out, the less i know of 'him'. there is less and less significance for me in this research. and I have no qualms with thinking of him on the same plane as Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.
Who's ignoring? I'm asking you to verify existence. Then we can logically proceed to have the other questions answered. Belief isn't proof. Proof is proof. Only with proven existence can we logically proceed.
I personally think we can account for its origin... It's down largely to Man's vivid imagination. That for me is where it originates. While we attach such huge importance to a theory, what hope is there to pursue serious practice?
I think I do ascribe to it. But then again, if I'm proved wrong, it really doesn't matter. Now, before or in the future.
I find such cogitations utterly pointless and a waste of precious time. The Buddha also said such cogitations were a waste of time.
He's actually right. I mean, ultimately, if you find anything out, one way or the other, where does it actually take you now?
"When you throw out philostogen from the outset then everything associated with philostogen is thrown out which begs the question what is being thrown out."
'Treating philostogen as non existent is a big leap just as "if".'
Buddhism doesn't deal with a creator god for the same reason that chemistry doesn't deal with philostogen. There's no evidence that it exists and it doesn't explain anything. With both god and philostogen, there was no "deciding not to establish", just an acknowledgment that attempts to establish had been unsuccessful.
Neither the coherency or the truth value of a concept depend on being able to explain the origin of the phenomenon it applies to. The concept of "the universe" isn't less coherent or less true if we don't explain the origin of the universe. In Buddhism, the cycle of samsara ends when liberation occurs. For purposes of liberation, the question of whether the universe continues infinitely or not is irrelevant.
"If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin
.
Pardon? What's a tea port? Are we talking Boston, here?
It does not matter what we compare with, whether Brahman or Tao, if we do this, the absolute in Buddhism is not understood.
It is common to think the other religions must have penetrated what the Buddha penetrated.
In the sutta below, the Buddha lists the God spheres within the hierachy of spiritual experience.
What happens to liberation when the universe ends?
.
Science can be fascinated with it all it likes. Buddhism isn't science. Close. But not quite.
They'll end simultaneously.
They won't end simultaneously.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Why? They'll end simultaneously.
They won't end simultaneously.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Why?
I suggest if you really can't put this down, you read "The Quantum and the Lotus".
I'm sure it will be right up your street.
Both samsara and liberation will end if the universe ends because they are relational fabrics... based on subjective experiences that will cease without bodies.
Like, for instance, the color red will end with the universe, because there will be no light or objects to reflect light, but the physics will still be true that makes the vibration. So if the next universe follows the same patterns of vibration, which it is projected it will, the patterns will begin again.
I notice there seems to be a needless projection or striving for something of eternity, which can create clinging... or perhaps the other way around.
With warmth,
Matt
I have read that book, and must say that there are quite a bit of fascinating correlations between quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy.
It is much wiser to understand that 'we' are 'us' or 'I' am 'me'. I am not the monk.
Attachment to teachers in general can become a problem if we no longer think for ourselves and just believe everything that we are told.
.
Where and when was 'God' ever 'nameless truth'?
Where and when did Buddha ever teach 'nameless truth'?
How can something universal, namely, 'truth' be 'nameless'?
:eek2: :screwy:
Many wise words are spoken here.
.
1)The monk wasn't a buddhist
2)The layman and monk can't agree on a subject
3)The layman and monk can't agree on the definition of god
4)The layman and monk like to talk about different subject
5)The layman and monk were using different languages
6)The layman and monk were in parrallel universe
7)The layman and monk were in different time period
8)The people are an illusion - they don't exist
9)The forest is an illusion
10)Make up your own interpretation. It doesn't matter
11)Why bother with the story, it is just clinging
you forgot 12) the layman and the monk, were caught in an inter-dimensional cross-rip, that destablized their cellular structure, and their cellular phones, leading to a breakdown in communication.
Actually... the story isnt rocket science. I have nothing more to add to this thread.:)
But I really am recommending this book for you to pick up and read. It's very insightful and extremely 'illuminating' .....but not in 'that' way.....:D
I truly do feel it would be something of great interest to you.
How is that a strawman argument? It's pointing out the degree of validity God has, and it's as much valid as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Actually, I take that back. Santa Claus is more likely to exist than God because there is no inherent contradictions with his existence. You say Santa Claus is easily refuted, I'd love to hear this refutation.
Also, I don't see how Bertrand Russel failed with the tea pot analogy. Bertrand was pointing that both claims are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability makes something less valid.
.
Personally, I'm a deist. But I have no proof that I'm right. It's just a belief, so there's no real point in trying to argue about it.
People who take that view hold it to be so, but it doesnt stand up.
"nameless truth" doesn't ring a bell.
Indeed. A nameless truth would be a named truth presumably called "Nameless Truth".