Buddhism and God: What's the problem?

[AfterGlow]

The Buddha clearly rejected all Gods.

What about the devas?

 

[Tathagata]

What about the devas?

Yes, he rejected the devas too, but in a different way. He came face to face with them so clearly they existed, but he denied their godhood. They would claim to be godly, but then the Buddha would expose their ignorance and tell them to their face that he was superior to them. He said this in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutra.


.

 

[Sikh]

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

[/quote]

You Follow a path, I am not disputing or casting value judgments on this, my questions are to do with the Buddhist Scriptures. Let me be clear, I don't dispute the Enlightenment of Buddha, I dispute that the Buddhist scriptures are correct. To dual minds, the actions written of the enlightened Buddha are going to be dualistic, but they are presented as if they are not. The Buddha did not write anything down, this should be enough to cast doubt on the methodology suggested by the scriptures to achieve an awakened state.

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.

You see nihilism, but nihilism is a dual opposite of something, this is what Buddha rejected. Dualism.

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

Yes it is, but ethics are the opposite of ignorance, still dualism. This is not a path to reach an awakened state, this is Karma in its extreme form. To calculate bad, good, bad, good, is building stronger dual forms.

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.

You see, you write a Buddha, IS. No permanence, yet here is a permanent form. A permanent depiction, and so a permanence which has to be maintained. I believe there is a Zen quote that says one should kill Buddha if one finds him--it makes more sense then what you are asking.

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.

You are still taking about gain, its taken a different form, selflessness, leading to the permanent happiness of others. Attachment to forms of Duality. You want attachment to mean things you deem incorrect. Unhappiness for example.

What has theology to do with anything?

The Buddhist scriptures are written by theologians, not enlightened ones in my opinion.

 

[Sikh]

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

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

Ok, glad that that's cleared up. Woo!

 

[zenzero]

Friend Luis Dantes,

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.

One surely can uses his own mind to give its own defination but will always be biased, limited and the only way is by transcending the very mind to understand MIND itself.
Transcending happens only when the mind stills.
Dropping is an happening which comes of its own accord when the mind find itself redundant a state of Buddhahood till then the mind is active but needs to be stilled till all its activities are consciously over.
Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

Secular means religious and there are very FEW who are actually non-religious Buddhists.

I take it that you meant that secular means NON-religious?

 

[Tathagata]

I take it that you meant that secular means NON-religious?

Yes. Thanks for catching that.

 

[Wombat]

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

With respect Tathagata...

Of Siddhārtha Gautama- “The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[2] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra- “A number of ancient translations of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra were made from Sanskrit into the Chinese language, as early as the 3rd century CE with a translation by the Indian monk Dharmarakṣa.[2] Of these, only three are now extant.

The first extant Chinese translation is Taisho Tripitaka 670 .This is the earliest edition which was translated by Guṇabhadra in 443 CE, and divided into four fascicles.[3] This edition by Guṇabhadra is said to be the one handed down from the founder of Chinese Zen, Bodhidharma, to the Second Patriarch, Huike,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra

That is from sometime around 563 BCE to 483 BCE............to........... the “3rd century CE”/ “443 CE”..

Please....you do the math...that is a huge gap and takes us back to my original proposition-

#45-“It is my understanding that for the first 300(?) years of Buddhism the followers of the Buddha followed the instruction not to write anything down. Subsequently both the Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism traditions began writing and recording the sayings and teachings of the Buddha. Thus there is something of a lag time in establishing what was said/taught with any authority. Scholars/Academics tend to rely on those verses commonly held/observed by both traditions.”
Now...I can take a great deal of wisdom and joy and comfort and understanding from the teachings of Buddhism....but I cannot take anything written/recorded regarding what someone is supposed to have said 3-4 hundred years or more prior as >verbatim<.

I apply the same principles to Judaism and Christianity.

I cannot apply any authority to writings recorded hundreds of years later often in different countries.

 

[Tathagata]

With respect Tathagata...

Moving the goalpost fallacy. Your initial request was "provide a couple or few of these "MULTIPLE" examples of Buddha addressing the God issue." -- You

I fulfilled that request and now you are trying to bring up a new issue which is not necessary for me to address given that I met the requirements of your challenge.

You must now concede that Buddhist scripture does indeed have instances of the Buddha addressing the God issue whether you accept the scriptures as valid or not.

Of Siddh&#257;rtha Gautama- &#8220;The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[2] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.&#8221;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Of the La&#7749;k&#257;vat&#257;ra S&#363;tra- &#8220;A number of ancient translations of the La&#7749;k&#257;vat&#257;ra S&#363;tra were made from Sanskrit into the Chinese language, as early as the 3rd century CE with a translation by the Indian monk Dharmarak&#7779;a.[2] Of these, only three are now extant.

The first extant Chinese translation is Taisho Tripitaka 670 .This is the earliest edition which was translated by Gu&#7751;abhadra in 443 CE, and divided into four fascicles.[3] This edition by Gu&#7751;abhadra is said to be the one handed down from the founder of Chinese Zen, Bodhidharma, to the Second Patriarch, Huike,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lankavatara_Sutra

That is from sometime around 563 BCE to 483 BCE............to........... the &#8220;3rd century CE&#8221;/ &#8220;443 CE&#8221;..

Please....you do the math...that is a huge gap and takes us back to my original proposition-

"I have here the La&#7749;k&#257;vat&#257;ra in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism." -- Bodhidharma [Suzuki, D.T.]

Also, let me add that you seem to be ignoring the other passages that did NOT come from the Lankavatara Sutra. What about the Tittha Sutta or the Culla Vagga that I posted? Both are from the Tipitaka.

#45-&#8220;It is my understanding that for the first 300(?) years of Buddhism the followers of the Buddha followed the instruction not to write anything down. Subsequently both the

Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism traditions began writing and recording the sayings and teachings of the Buddha. Thus there is something of a lag time in establishing what was said/taught with any authority. Scholars/Academics tend to rely on those verses commonly held/observed by both traditions.&#8221;
Now...I can take a great deal of wisdom and joy and comfort and understanding from the teachings of Buddhism....but I cannot take anything written/recorded regarding what someone is supposed to have said 3-4 hundred years or more prior as >verbatim<.

I apply the same principles to Judaism and Christianity.

I cannot apply any authority to writings recorded hundreds of years later often in different countries.

I never contended these points to begin with. I just contended that scriptures include instances of Buddha addressing God. Anyways, here's my response.

There's two problems here. First, the Buddha is not separate from the man described in scriptures. If there exists a man who teaches something other than what is said in scriptures, then that man is NOT the Buddha. The Buddha is defined by scripture and is by definition, the man in scripture, especially given that those are the only records of him.

Second, you cannot apply the same principles you do to Judaism and Christianity as you do to Buddhism. You have no idea how different the methods of recording worked in the early periods of Buddhism. It was unlike anything that Judeo-Christianity did. The early Buddhists had a very precise and effective oral tradition that was every bit as reliable as a scribe today. They had a certain patternistic approach and would recite the verses in song for memorization. The ancients had a certain memory capability that we don't have because our attention spans have decreased from technology. Did you know that there are still Muslims to this day who can recite the WHOLE Quran word for word? That kind of skill is the same skill used in early Buddhist times. So your skepticism of the accuracy is without warrant.



.

 

[Sikh]

There's two problems here. First, the Buddha is not separate from the man described in scriptures. If there exists a man who teaches something other than what is said in scriptures, then that man is NOT the Buddha. The Buddha is defined by scripture and is by definition, the man in scripture, especially given that those are the only records of him.

Second, you cannot apply the same principles you do to Judaism and Christianity as you do to Buddhism. You have no idea how different the methods of recording worked in the early periods of Buddhism. It was unlike anything that Judeo-Christianity did. The early Buddhists had a very precise and effective oral tradition that was every bit as reliable as a scribe today. They had a certain patternistic approach and would recite the verses in song for memorization. The ancients had a certain memory capability that we don't have because our attention spans have decreased from technology. Did you know that there are still Muslims to this day who can recite the WHOLE Quran word for word? That kind of skill is the same skill used in early Buddhist times. So your skepticism of the accuracy is without warrant.



.

Are you serious?
Your an atheist? The ancients had a certain memory capability translates to they were always honest and correct and never influenced by local time politics or anything else except for pure dharma? And that's not even going into your fantastic claim of perfect recital backed apparently by Muslims who can recite the Koran.

Perfect recital which wasn't enough to split the sangha into two groups, but thats probably due to not so Fantastic comprehension skills on their part, yes? Boy must be great to remember everything and understand nothing.

The guy clearly showed you the fallacy of placing your full faith in the Buddhist text and your response is no different than the Faith people in Abrahamic religions show for their religious texts infallibility.

The Buddhist texts are infallible, only ignorant humans are fallible and so don't understand the infallibility of the text, and the fantastic skills of the authors. This is what you believe?

Permanence, infallibility and yet the reasoning of Buddhism comes from impermanence/duality--something which does not apply to the Buddhist texts apparently.

But I apologize, because my skepticism also of the accuracy is without warrant now that I have read you response.


By the way, if their recital abilities were so perfect and served them for so long, why did they start writing it down?

 

[AfterGlow]

Let me be clear, I don't dispute the Enlightenment of Buddha, I dispute that the Buddhist scriptures are correct. To dual minds, the actions written of the enlightened Buddha are going to be dualistic, but they are presented as if they are not. The Buddha did not write anything down, this should be enough to cast doubt on the methodology suggested by the scriptures to achieve an awakened state.

That's a rational criticism.

You see nihilism, but nihilism is a dual opposite of something, this is what Buddha rejected. Dualism.

Nihilism is the opposite of, in this context, beings having inherent natures. Buddha taught that objects don't have permanent inherent natures, he also taught that objects aren't non-existent, rather he taught that we exist as something between the two, we have impermanent but very real existence. No duality there that I can see.

Yes it is, but ethics are the opposite of ignorance, still dualism. This is not a path to reach an awakened state, this is Karma in its extreme form. To calculate bad, good, bad, good, is building stronger dual forms.

Ethics aren't the opposite of ignorance, you can still be a good person even if you don't understand why you should be. And the Buddha didn't teach in terms of good or bad, he used words like skillful or correct to describe acts and thoughts that either brought people more suffering or less suffering. You could see the suffering/not suffering concept as dualistic, but you'd be missing the point that suffering doesn't actually exist in a real sense, it's only our perceptions that dictate whether we consider ourselves to suffer or not.

You see, you write a Buddha, IS. No permanence, yet here is a permanent form. A permanent depiction, and so a permanence which has to be maintained. I believe there is a Zen quote that says one should kill Buddha if one finds him--it makes more sense then what you are asking.

That's just a limitation of language. You can't write or speak about topics like this in English in a manner that makes cognitive sense without resorting to words that suggest permanence, when really you don't intend that interpretation.

You are still taking about gain, its taken a different form, selflessness, leading to the permanent happiness of others. Attachment to forms of Duality. You want attachment to mean things you deem incorrect. Unhappiness for example.

No, attachment isn't anything that I deem to mean incorrect. Attachment or clinging is the simple process by which the mind shapes and holds onto an imagined permanence, when in reality such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[Sikh]

Afterglow you win.

I raise my cup to you dear sir.

And wish you many insights and a long life.


:knight:

 

[AfterGlow]

Afterglow you win.

I raise my cup to you dear sir.

And wish you many insights and a long life.


:knight:

Huh? Erm... thank you...

Is this just a nice way of saying that we should agree to disagree?

 

[Sikh]

Huh? Erm... thank you...

Is this just a nice way of saying that we should agree to disagree?

No its a nice way of saying that I think we should attack the Disagreement together--quick you hold it down while I find a better communication method to kill it with.



:super:

 

[AfterGlow]

No its a nice way of saying that I think we should attack the Disagreement together--quick you hold it down while I find a better communication method to kill it with.



:super:

Lol! Okay then.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Non-secular Buddhists appears accurate at first glimpse, and even throughout various phases of practice. Yet as "Buddhism is the religion of no-religion", it is also been attributed as being the religion of religion. Leave it to Alan Watt's to point through the facade crystal clear.

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

Dunno for certain but you appear convinced enough, so there is really nothing amiss to point out to the contrary. You have to work through it if you remain stolid. Conversely the same goes for me as well.

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.

Actually Brad Warner addressed and elaborated as best as words can be used on the matter. As I understand, I see this as rejecting an anthropomorphic entity of which is commonly viewed as being such, but not dismissive of life phenomena.

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 was referring to unchanging view. Come hell or high water.

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.

The Buddha clearly is dead. Neither of us will never ever know for certain if that is/was the actual case or not.

All you or I have to go by is directly based on karma.

 

[zer0]

I'm not sure he ever actually said those exact words. I know he stressed things on God though. I am sure that it is because he was teaching of the pursuit of God much rather than a belief in God. I think too many people forget the fact that the Buddha was himself a Hindu, and that he said that upon his enlightenment he was approached by the Hindu gods who convinced him to teach. He was a Hindu. Much in the same way that Christ was a Jew. Hindu teachings speak of a God in manners much the same as those of Tibetan Buddhist teachings, more than the polytheistic form of God we westerners understand them as believing in and far more than the personal man in the sky form of god we hold to. They rather propose that the ultimate existence (what we Buddhist refer to as the Ultimate Reality and what scientists refer to as the Universe) is God.

Even Christian doctrine hints at this in Revelations 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." well if God is the beginning and the end, who is and who was, and further who is to come what does that mean? It means quite blatantly that God is as he said in Revelation 22:13 the First and the last and further he is that which is now. So God is not only a guy in the sky. He is The first thing to exist, and from there everything which existed until NOW, and from here he will be everything which will ever exist until the end. If one has even the most primitive logical skills he can assume that this means that God is in fact EXISTENCE.

I think that the Buddha recognized what the Hindu teachings hint at and that is the fact that we are a part of God. As a result he may have concluded that merely believing in God would not lead to enlightenment because when one believes in something one often has no desire to further pursue it. For instance, if I sincerely and utterly believe that at the end of my road there is a dancing mime, why should I go to the end of it to see if I am right? Of course not, I am already convinced I am right. Now try building it up. Build up the image of the mime. This is no ordinary mime. He is THE mime. The best mime ever to not be spoken of. THIS mime, is genius. Now, I might have a reason to go to the end of the road. But when I get there, I only find a silent mime, dancing. I'm disappointed. I feel like I walked all the way there just to see a stupid silent mime. I was much better just believing. So I go back home and just continue to believe in the mime. See, God is not as great as the west describes him. I'm not saying he is not great and it is hard to explain what I mean. But if most Christians encountered the phenomenon they called God, they wouldn't even recognize it. The Buddha was trying to avoid what he found caused to MOST suffering. Ideas and attachment. He didn't want God to be personified. Any way that's one twats opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

zerO, I understand and accept that Siddhartha was said to be involved in Hindu practices to which he later on formed Buddhism, not as an offshoot mind you but rather as a path of which recognizes no affiliation with the tenants of Hinduism. There is a relationship though such as that involving meditation of which Siddhartha prior to becoming the Buddha was taught foundational techniques by his teachers.

I take that Buddha left any interpretations or convictions involving God of which will "fit" best left for ones own nuances hence the silence of which upon reflection, really is the best and most direct answer to the question.

 

[zer0]

zerO, I understand and accept that Siddhartha was said to be involved in Hindu practices to which he later on formed Buddhism, not as an offshoot mind you but rather as a path of which recognizes no affiliation with the tenants of Hinduism. There is a relationship though such as that involving meditation of which Siddhartha prior to becoming the Buddha was taught foundational techniques by his teachers.

I take that Buddha left any interpretations or convictions involving God of which will "fit" best left for ones own nuances hence the silence of which upon reflection, really is the best and most direct answer to the question.

The Hindus devloped the ideas of karma, the Upanishads were the first to mention the mantra AUM as the Buddhist refer to OM and they not only mentioned it but defined its structure and it's meaning and it's path. It was undoubtedly from Hinduism where the Buddha learned meditation practices and it was most likely Hindu yogi's which he encountered on his path to enlightenment. The Buddha may have denounced Hinduism but it was practically impossible for him to prevent it from affecting his path to liberation. The only spiritual teachings in the area at the time were Hindu or Jain but he vehemently renounced the Jains for their extremism. The most significant contribution that the Buddha made was in fact his doctrine on the middle way. Of course he denounced some of the teachings of Hinduism but Hinduism condones this holding that there are several methods of reaching liberation, the Buddha merely established a new method to liberation.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

The fundamental understanding required for every individual who make efforts to walk the path is primarily that being a part of the *whole* there is no path to walk it is only a discovery an uncovering of that thin film of maya or illusion that appears to have got created like a barrier/division between the *whole* and the form that the part may be including what we label as *I* for just an understanding.
Once that is understood then one is enlightened to be a part of that whole and then no form is seeing as forms but as no-forms and so no-forms are forms in reverse.
Then all religions are mere paths be it labelled a path traveled by Jesus or Gautama or Lao Tsu or thousands and thousands who left without leaving any footprints in the sands of time or flown away through the sky.
Any discussions about them or their paths are of not much consequences once that uncovering happens.
Background of Gautama was Sanatan dharma which means eternal laws of existence and revelations through him were nothing but the path getting evolved further as the dharama is not only eternal but also unlimited and all paths /ways/religions come under its gambit.
each individual who reaches enlightenment is in a way moving that dharma wheel or existence gets evolved further through such individuals.
Love & rgds