Buddhism and God: What's the problem?

[LuisDantas]

Can you elaborate your what your trying to say... :drool:

Well, I have enough of a challenge trying to figure how come Christians and Muslims seem to actually believe in a literal God, at least part of the time.

That Buddhism might somehow lack coherence without such a concept seems to be quite beyond my powers of understanding. I just don't see how that could possibly be.

I guess Atheism is simply too natural for me to actually conceive of a world, or even a belief, that denies it. I'm aware of theism and of theist religion, but they are quite weird in my eyes, to the extent that they actually rely on belief in the existence of one or more gods.

 

[Sikh]

I am not saying Buddhism is not Atheistic, It may very well be, I am saying the Buddhist scriptures are not atheistic, they rely on the concept of a sole consciousness to explain Buddha's concern for others after enlightenment since technically he is supposed to be beyond Maya/duality and should not be concerned.
Two things could have occurred, the writers of the Buddhist scripts while knowing about the Buddhas enlightenment, made up the part about the teaching and his concern for impermanent Humanity--or they simply left out the part about the sole consciousness due to the fact that those who had access to Buddhist scripts also had access to other Indian scriptures and both were meant to be read.
The confusion could have got worse when the Buddhist scriptures went abroad because the Hindu Dharmas are not meant to be discussed with foreigners and so stayed in India. This is only a theory.

Abrahamic concepts of God rely on God existing alongside us somewhere, they also rely on one accepting that their respective scriptures are perfectly describing reality. Our concept of God is that if one were to investigate the universe, not mistakenly with the five senses or in a state of ego demanded by pleasure and pain one would come to see there is no duality or parts, there is only one and that one is all. This does not rely on scriptures, investigate reality, you will not find many, but one. That is Dharma.

 

[zenzero]

Friend sikh,

As for destroying the bridge to enlightenment by concerning myself with delusional minds , why does your concern for my impermanence build that same bridge?

Probably you missed parts of what was pointed at.
There is none here to do anything.
What is happening are happening due to its own accord and am no party to them.
consciousness within clouded by delusions are slowing evolving by itself to merge with the universal consciousness through this form and as all forms and no-forms too are the same consciousness and so there are no *me*, you* etc. As mentioned even the forms are delusions.
Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

This does not rely on scriptures, investigate reality, you will not find many, but one. That is Dharma.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just giving this matter too much attention.

 

[ZooGirl02]

If I understand it correctly, the Buddha thought that belief in God was superstitious. Is this correct?

 

[Sikh]

Friend sikh,


Probably you missed parts of what was pointed at.
There is none here to do anything.
What is happening are happening due to its own accord and am no party to them.
consciousness within clouded by delusions are slowing evolving by itself to merge with the universal consciousness through this form and as all forms and no-forms too are the same consciousness and so there are no *me*, you* etc. As mentioned even the forms are delusions.
Love & rgds

How can my non existing self have missed non exiting parts?

Man walks into God, God he asks, yes asks God? How come you talk to yourself so much?


:sarcastic
:no:, , :yes: , :shout ,:sw:, :drool:


:sarcastic

 

[zenzero]

Friend sikh,

Man walks into God, God he asks, yes asks God? How come you talk to yourself so much?

You MIND keep missing; so your mind itself has to figure it out.
When did this man created label God and the *man* separate???? to even ask???

Love & rgds

 

[AfterGlow]

AfterGlow, if nothing is permanent, you must acknowledge this includes concern for impermanent suffering, or do you say that suffering is permanent? Do you see the contradiction? Why is the Buddha attached to eradicating suffering? You write the Buddha would have lacked any self concern but that is still a dual process of looking at it, lord Siddhartha is no more, the concerns and goals of his ego are no more, from this state he should not be attached to shifting Maya into different forms--if we go solely by what enlightenment is according to Buddhist scriptures themselves.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

There is no contradiction Sikh. The Buddha wasn't attached to suffering, the fact is that because he lacked attachment, to anything, he eliminated any self serving interest he may have. This didn't render him a zombie, a god or anything else other than an awakened human being. He was still alive, observed that others suffered because of their ignorance and attachments and relayed his knowledge in response. If people chose not to accept his teachings, it would not have phased him.

Also, Siddhatha the man certainly did still exist, in body and mind. Nirvana is the awakening to the world as it really is, which results in a shift of perspective regarding the sense of self and it's relation to the world. It isn't the elimination of self, of mind or the fusing of the individual with "The One".

In a later post you said you believe that Buddhist teachings lead to duality. In many cases this is true, as the concept of true emptiness and detachment are very difficult to grasp intellectually. There are many traditions that have suffered as a result of people misunderstanding the dharma and introducing concepts similar to the atman (Buddha-nature) and body-mind duality. That's not a criticism though, just an observation on human nature.

 

[Sikh]

Afterglow, you are not following Buddhism, you are following enlightened materialism. The very fact that you are still going on about human beings is the problem. To see a human is to have an ego, to have an ego is against what Buddha achieved--major contradiction. This isn't anything to do with God, it is the base of the noble path in the most atheistic sense possible.

The problem is that you want a highly thought out ethical system, not necessarily anything to do with Buddhism. You are writing that an enlightened person, who achieves enlightenment on the basis of rejecting permanence and one's desire to maintain permanent forms from impermanent ones--spent most of his life teaching in reaction to impermanence? And you don't see a problem because according to you selfishness is only defined as when actions are taken in the benefit of oneself and oneself alone. This version is not attachment, simply reaction. Serendipity of teaching happened countless times by Buddha being near suffering, and it was OK because the Buddha was never rewarded, nor wanted reward from such.

In this model you have gotten rid of Karma, rebirth, and Maya. Nirvana, according to you is not an attempt to escape from rebirth but a physiological state of a human, the optimum human state, the Renaissance state, yes?

I have a Question, why this physiological state and not a purely hedonistic state only reversed like Santa clause? This is what you are describing. You don't see duality as the problem, but selfishness. You don't see the Buddha's action as described in the scriptures as fostering duality, you see elimination of suffering without sought reward, and so correct.

Linear theology, only now borrowing and shaping a non linear theology is all I see.

 

[Wa Dok]

I had posted in another thread that Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada from Pali relates this quote,
"Through many births I have wandered on and on, searching for, but never finding, the builder of this house. To be born again and again is suffering. House builder, you are seen!"
From this, I deduced that Buddha called "God" the "housebuilder". I also inferred that the Buddha Gautama did, in fact, believe in God, even if he wasn't fond of it.
In my own opinion, if flesh has come in any form once, it can come to the same form again. And, if entity has a separate existence, then entity could visit this universe in some other form as well (besides the flesh we know). We cannot prove or disprove anything. That said, if we buy into Occam's Razor, if anything has established its capacity to exist then it has a higher probablity of happening again (higher than something else which has never deplayed its form).
Is this poor logic? How do others read any texts that affirm Buddha's denial of a single uncaused cause? As for the multiple gods, I am sure he simply used them to relate to his Hindu cultured audience, and as a way to establish a wisdom on any point at hand.

 

[LuisDantas]

I had posted in another thread that Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada from Pali relates this quote,
"Through many births I have wandered on and on, searching for, but never finding, the builder of this house. To be born again and again is suffering. House builder, you are seen!"
From this, I deduced that Buddha called "God" the "housebuilder". I also inferred that the Buddha Gautama did, in fact, believe in God, even if he wasn't fond of it.

If you say so. It doesn't look like the most natural interpretation to me personally, however.

To the extent that one can draw a clear conclusion from a statement that the housebuilder was never found, shortly followed by one that he is seen, it seems to me that the conclusion would be that there is no substance to the housebuilder. In other words, that he does not really exist as such.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I understand it correctly, the Buddha thought that belief in God was superstitious. Is this correct?

Far as I can tell, not so much belief as reliance on him.

Belief is ultimately inconsequential, much as is disbelief.

 

[zenzero]

Friend AfterGlow,

Your above post reflects a clear understanding of Gautama's position and the buddha nature.

Through Gautama Buddha the Dharma chakra/wheel itself moved!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Luis Dantes,

Belief is ultimately inconsequential, much as is disbelief.

The reason is simply because BELIEFS stem from the MIND and like all mind matter are simply delusional.

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Wa Dok,

I had posted in another thread that Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada from Pali relates this quote,
"Through many births I have wandered on and on, searching for, but never finding, the builder of this house. To be born again and again is suffering. House builder, you are seen!"
From this, I deduced that Buddha called "God" the "housebuilder". I also inferred that the Buddha Gautama did, in fact, believe in God, even if he wasn't fond of it

There are two aspects to be considered:
1. That there appears to be a housebuilder [before the search]
2. There is no housebuilder found [after the search]
It is deduced that it is simply our own mind that creates this world and as soon as the mind stills and merging happens there is no housebuilder found cause the builder and the building has merged and so the merged entity cannot speak of any builder and his building and again as the mind becomes active there is no housebuilder; and so it is deduced that the whole play/maya is dependent of the state of mind and the merged state/samadhi/etc. is the only natural state and the rest are mind created illusions/delusions.

Love & rgds

 

[Tathagata]

@Wombat: These are the scripture quotes you have asked for.

@Sikh: You're wrong. Scripture is Atheistic.

@Wa dok: I am surprised that you as a Buddhist don't know what the Buddha believed about God. You claimed Buddha believed in God yet had NO scriptural proof! I have scripture proof to the contrary that the Buddha indeed rejected the existence of God.

The Buddhas quotes refuting God and belief in God:

the Buddha: "Others think that God is free creator of all things; clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening." [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha : "All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: “This position rises the question of a first cause which the philosophers meet by asserting that their first cause, God and the primal elements, are un-born and un-annihilate; which position is without evidence and is irrational.” [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them....But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana." [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: " The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

the Buddha: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being' s act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." [Tittha Sutta]

the Buddha: "Others see the eternally of things in the conception of Nirvana as the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; and some, who are especially silly, declare that there are two primary things, a primary substance and a primary soul, that react differently upon each other and thus produce all things from the transformations of qualities; some think that the world is born of action and interaction and that no other cause is necessary;" [Lankavatara Sutra]

The Buddha's Discourse On God, the Absolute, the First Cause, and the Nature of Reality From the Culla Vagga of the Tipitika:

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one.Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by the self?

"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

[Culla Vagga 6:2]

 

[AfterGlow]

Afterglow, you are not following Buddhism, you are following enlightened materialism.

I try to follow the path that ends suffering, you can call it what you like.

The very fact that you are still going on about human beings is the problem. To see a human is to have an ego, to have an ego is against what Buddha achieved--major contradiction. This isn't anything to do with God, it is the base of the noble path in the most atheistic sense possible.

To see a human being is to see a bipedal ape. All humans have minds, even Buddhas, to say they don't is to say that their perception has either merged with some universal being, monism, which the Buddha rejected, or that there is no Buddha and no mind, nihilism, which the Buddha also rejected.

The problem is that you want a highly thought out ethical system, not necessarily anything to do with Buddhism.

The Buddhadharma is a highly thought out ethical and practical system of living.

You are writing that an enlightened person, who achieves enlightenment on the basis of rejecting permanence and one's desire to maintain permanent forms from impermanent ones--spent most of his life teaching in reaction to impermanence?
And you don't see a problem because according to you selfishness is only defined as when actions are taken in the benefit of oneself and oneself alone. This version is not attachment, simply reaction. Serendipity of teaching happened countless times by Buddha being near suffering, and it was OK because the Buddha was never rewarded, nor wanted reward from such.

In this model you have gotten rid of Karma, rebirth, and Maya. Nirvana, according to you is not an attempt to escape from rebirth but a physiological state of a human, the optimum human state, the Renaissance state, yes?

I don't see a difference between escaping the cycle of rebirth and achieving the optimal human mental state. I merely gave you my thoughts on why the Buddha chose to teach. A Buddha has no karma, no rebirth, no maya. Even the stories say that Buddha had a choice, he could sit in contentment under his Bodhi tree for the rest of his life, or he could share what he had learnt. He chose the latter because, fundamentally, a Buddha is a compassionate being who has rid himself of all negative and self-orientated thoughts and emotions.

I have a Question, why this physiological state and not a purely hedonistic state only reversed like Santa clause? This is what you are describing. You don't see duality as the problem, but selfishness. You don't see the Buddha's action as described in the scriptures as fostering duality, you see elimination of suffering without sought reward, and so correct.

Why not a reversed hedonism? Because material gain can only bring temporary happiness.
I think the problem may lie in your interpretation of attachment. Maybe if you explain to me what you think attachment is, I might be able to explain my point of view better.

Linear theology, only now borrowing and shaping a non linear theology is all I see.

What has theology to do with anything?

 

[LuisDantas]

Belief is ultimately inconsequential, much as is disbelief.

The reason is simply because BELIEFS stem from the MIND and like all mind matter are simply delusional.

That is one way of putting it, but it relies on a definition of mind that I find fairly unnatural and misleading.

I would rather say that reality is separate from belief, and only very indirectly affected by it. After all, the cultivation of a correct understanding is also of the mind, although I suppose you would describe it as some sort of dropping of the mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I had posted in another thread that Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada from Pali relates this quote,
"Through many births I have wandered on and on, searching for, but never finding, the builder of this house. To be born again and again is suffering. House builder, you are seen!"
From this, I deduced that Buddha called "God" the "housebuilder". I also inferred that the Buddha Gautama did, in fact, believe in God, even if he wasn't fond of it.
In my own opinion, if flesh has come in any form once, it can come to the same form again. ....

@Sikh: You're wrong. Scripture is Atheistic.

@Wa dok: I am surprised that you as a Buddhist don't know what the Buddha believed about God. You claimed Buddha believed in God yet had NO scriptural proof! I have scripture proof to the contrary that the Buddha indeed rejected the existence of God.

This is commonplace to observe in way of exchanges, although I would say the majority of Buddhists tend to favor more towards the secular route. While I take and agree that the Buddha did not affirm the existence of any (specific) god or gods, at the same time, there is certainly no denying upon one's observation and experience that the universe is not completely comprised of dead inanimate matter either.

Just be mindful that such (either view) should never become static and attributed with permanency. In other words, never to deny or affirm such using strict linearity to which this becomes an ensnarement of ego.

I am pretty confident however that the Buddha IMO was not referring to any type of god akin to which Abrahamic religion recognized as being such.

 

[Tathagata]

This is commonplace to observe in way of exchanges, although I would say the majority of Buddhists tend to favor more towards the secular route.

False. The majority of Buddhists are non-secular. Secular means non-religious and there are very FEW who are actually non-religious Buddhists. It's actually a very odd position to take because Buddhism itself is a religion, so it's hard to call something a non-religious religion, though, odd as it is, it's possible for as Alan Watts described it, Buddhism is the religion of no-religion.

While I take and agree that the Buddha did not affirm the existence of any (specific) god or gods,

No, it's not just that he didn't affirm Gods, he actually explicitly rejected any an all forms of God.

at the same time, there is certainly no denying upon one's observation and experience that the universe is not completely comprised of dead inanimate matter either.

Who ever asserted that and what does that have to do with God? An Atheist doesn't have to believe that the universe is comprised of dead inanimate matter. An Atheist can believe either proposition concerning the nature of matter long as they reject a God.

Just be mindful that such (either view) should never become static and attributed with permanency. In other words, never to deny or affirm such using strict linearity to which this becomes an ensnarement of ego.

How can one attribute permanancy to something non-existent? An Atheist merely says God does not exist, he doesn't say anything about eternality or permanancy.

I am pretty confident however that the Buddha IMO was not referring to any type of god akin to which Abrahamic religion recognized as being such.

Go through and read the passages I just posted. The Buddha said "ALL such notions of a ... Supreme Spirit, Soveriegn God, Creator ... are all figments of the imagination..."

He also refuted the notion of the Absolute. The alternative version of God to the Abrahamic God.

The Buddha clearly rejected all Gods.



.