Buddhism and God: What's the problem?

[The Wizard]

Generally, I find it to be that one will tend to place reliance on god or gods rather than ones self, and will also place responsibility for one's life and choices on god or gods, rather than ones self. Since ones own choices are what determine karma, if one is placing responsibility elsewhere, it is a good bet that dukkha will be increased.

ya, same thing here. I have problems with material demolishing the connection from within and setting it up as an authority outside or above one's self.. "inquire from within," is a highly underrated cliche considering the level of importance......IMO.

 

[Breathe]

ya, same thing here. I have problems with material demolishing the connection from within and setting it up as an authority outside or above one's self.. "inquire from within," is a highly underrated cliche considering the level of importance......IMO.

Whilst I agree, not all God-concepts are authorities above or outside of oneself, let us remember.

 

[bhasinusc]

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.

Absolutely SIKH !. I am amazed by your logical reasoning.

If Buddha was as he claimed Enlightened and an enlightened person is beyond this or that and has no feelings left inside him then what was the need for Buddha to:

1. Spread his message
2. Totally deny the existence of God.

My understanding of Buddha was that he never DENIED GOD probably as an Atheist would do so but he simply said that UNDERSTANDING GOD was not possible by Sentient beings and therefore there remained no fruitility in pursuing this task. Rather by trying to lead a good life one could achieve the same Goal or be better placed in achieving the same goal than building bad karmas and worshipping a personal God.

 

[bhasinusc]

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?

As far as my knowledge goes it was Ashoka who called upon the first Buddhist council to write down the teachings of Buddha . It was interesting that Ashoka decided to have it written down mainly because:

1. During that period there were different thoughts floating around as to what was the original teachings of buddha. Stories were going around that a few fake Monks had become Arihants .

2. In fact as per my knowledge in the first Buddhist council there were a few Arihants who were rejected to be Arihants and were asked to go out.

All this might prove that what the Buddhists wrote down as being the exact teachings of The Buddha might not be accurate

 

[Sweetvoice]

The First Buddhist Council was held rough about a month after the Buddha parinirvana (passing away), and not during Asoka's era. This Council was lead by the Buddha surviving chief disciple and attended by only arahant disciples, except Ananda - the Buddha personal attendant and disciple who was still at that time not enlightened (to the state of arahanthood). Because of this Ananda was not allowed entry into the council.
However, just moment later he attained sudden enlightenment through self-realization (making the story short), and entered magically through the door of the council chamber. Thereon, he is accepted in and consequently the Buddha's complete teachings of 45 years were recorded orally, and confirmed and witnessed by all teh arahants present as members of that first council.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Whatever be the historical facts;
What all of us may be missing is that any experience of buddhahood by anyone can never be expressed in words as even Lao Tsu mentioned in his first stanza of Tao Te Ching that words falsify meaning as soon as TRUTH is put in words some amount of mind perceptions comes in besides the reader who is not enlightened will always perceive the words through the mind and so falsification starts.
he whole teaching of Gautama is to awaken 5he consciousness or rather each individual to be aware of his *buddha nature* cause as soon as the awareness comes in one starts harmonising which leads to nirvana.
The question of denying or accepting *god* is only of the MIND and MIND is only a small part of nature. Only by transcending the mind is the individual in tune to be aware of that buddha nature.
Gauatama therefore spoke of ways to transcend the mind which is meditation and his middle path is all about being aware at all times even while *thinking* or *doing* anything and that very awareness leads to merging slowly and surely.

Love & rgds

 

[bhasinusc]

Friends,

Whatever be the historical facts;
What all of us may be missing is that any experience of buddhahood by anyone can never be expressed in words as even Lao Tsu mentioned in his first stanza of Tao Te Ching that words falsify meaning as soon as TRUTH is put in words some amount of mind perceptions comes in besides the reader who is not enlightened will always perceive the words through the mind and so falsification starts.
he whole teaching of Gautama is to awaken 5he consciousness or rather each individual to be aware of his *buddha nature* cause as soon as the awareness comes in one starts harmonising which leads to nirvana.
The question of denying or accepting *god* is only of the MIND and MIND is only a small part of nature. Only by transcending the mind is the individual in tune to be aware of that buddha nature.
Gauatama therefore spoke of ways to transcend the mind which is meditation and his middle path is all about being aware at all times even while *thinking* or *doing* anything and that very awareness leads to merging slowly and surely.

Love & rgds

said it best ZenZero.

 

[jamesjesica]

Does Buddha really argue against belief in gods or worship of them?

 

[zenzero]

Friend james,

Does Buddha really argue against belief in gods or worship of them?

Buddha is a state and not a person as generally understood.
Gautama never was for or against any labels including the word/label *GOD*; he pointed towards a path by which everyone can reach or find the *buddha* that is within everyone.

Love & rgds

 

[Onkara]

To add to Zenzero's good reply, the origin of the word "god" means "innate goodness" in saxon. I would not be suprised if one finds that "innate goodness" in themself then the state of buddha will also be recognised

 

[SageTree]

To add to Zenzero's good reply, the origin of the word "god" means "innate goodness" in saxon. I would not be suprised if one finds that "innate goodness" in themself then the state of buddha will also be recognised

Cool linguistic fact brother.:clap

 

[Eldameldo]

However, in some cases, it can be unhelpful to believe in God, since many "cling" to God. I don't. I rely on myself for "salvation", not gods or God; they can't implement it for me.

Abrahamic angry sky daddy god-concepts, I don't think these are really that compatible with Buddhism. More mystically-inclined ones, like panentheistic ones, not as difficult.

How can you rely on yourself for "salvation"? Let's see if I can explain what I'm thinking. You are trying to achieve something called "salvation". Until you do, something is missing, incomplete, or wrong with you. Correct? What is the standard? How can you have it within yourself to achieve this "salvation" when you are lacking it to begin with?

 

[Wombat]

My understanding of Buddha was that he never DENIED GOD probably as an Atheist would do so but he simply said that UNDERSTANDING GOD was not possible by Sentient beings and therefore there remained no fruitility in pursuing this task. Rather by trying to lead a good life one could achieve the same Goal or be better placed in achieving the same goal than building bad karmas and worshipping a personal God.

:yes:.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Wombat,

A NO to that Yes.
Cause Gautama was a sentient being to have realized what sentient beings are and that is that God is a conecpt which one can only be part of and can never perceive IT as from outside and so he wanted everyone to experience IT for themselves and remove all delusions of the mind about any imaginery God.

Love & rgds

 

[Samurai]

I think belief in God, existed in early buddhism. But later buddhism became distorted, and then this belief was no longer a part of the buddhist belief system.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Samurai,

You missed the point!!
If one becomes part of God, God becomes ????
Realisation of IT is the focus.

Love & rgds

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I thought the Buddha achieved supreme enlightenment because of God belief.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Biblestudent,

I thought....................

It is very simple; one just needs to STILL all THOUGHTS and one is not only enlightened by realising the BUDDHA in him and that he too is a part of that existence labeled GOD!

So, you too have the potential to STILL the thoughts but its hard work and MEDITATION is the only way.
Love & rgds

 

[Engyo]

I thought the Buddha achieved supreme enlightenment because of God belief.

What on earth made you think that?

 

[SageTree]

I think 'jump to that conclusion' might fit better in that sentence

I'm curious.