Buddhism and Jainism - theistic or non-theistic? or beyond these?

[nameless]

Buddha about god

Buddha once entered a village. A man in the morning asked him, "Does God Exist?"

Buddha replied, "No, absolutely not!"

In the afternoon, another man approached and posed the same question, "Does God exist?'

Buddha said, "Of course yes!"

In the evening, the third man asked the same question

The enlightened one closed His eyes and remained silent.

So it can be summed up as,

Yes, god exists.
No, god does not exists.
yes and no, god exists and does not exist or (silence)


Mahavira about god.

Yes, god exists.
No, god does not exists.
yes and no, god exists and does not exist
perhaps god is not
perhaps god exists and is indefinable
perhaps god is not that is indefinable
perhaps nothing can be said, only that is indefinable.

what can be concluded?

 

[xkatz]

Buddha Dharma and Jain Dharma don't emphasize on god. I can say in Buddha Dharma it's up to practitioner. I think in Jain Dharma, people can become "god", but not like in the Abrahamic sense; therefore Jain Dharma is sort of hybrid between polytheism and monism.

In the end though, both religions don't place much emphasis on belief of a creator god like in other faiths.

 

[LuisDantas]

Beyond.

 

[xkatz]

Beyond.

Beyond understanding... :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

It is just that "God" is a bit too vague a concept, Xkatz. Dharmic religions don't usually rely on it, with good reason.

 

[xkatz]

It is just that "God" is a bit too vague a concept, Xkatz. Dharmic religions don't usually rely on it, with good reason.

Agreed.

 

[DreadFish]

Buddha about god

Buddha once entered a village. A man in the morning asked him, "Does God Exist?"

Buddha replied, "No, absolutely not!"

In the afternoon, another man approached and posed the same question, "Does God exist?'

Buddha said, "Of course yes!"

In the evening, the third man asked the same question

The enlightened one closed His eyes and remained silent.

So it can be summed up as,

Yes, god exists.
No, god does not exists.
yes and no, god exists and does not exist or (silence)


Mahavira about god.

Yes, god exists.
No, god does not exists.
yes and no, god exists and does not exist
perhaps god is not
perhaps god exists and is indefinable
perhaps god is not that is indefinable
perhaps nothing can be said, only that is indefinable.

what can be concluded?

I am curious where you got these stories. I dont disbelieve, they sound good to me, but I want to make sure .

Also yes, its beyond God to me. I think "God"-ness is just a way to limit the base which such a concept is a label for. Though I dont discount that that which we call "God" can certainly limit and manifest itself to the needs of those who need it.

Theres the story in Buddhism about a man who has been shot with a poison arrow, and before he allows anyone to remove it and treat it, he wants to know who shot it, who his family is and where he came from etc.. But if he waits for all of that, then he is just wasting his time and will likely die, when he could be attending to the issue at hand, which is treating his disease.

I personally feel like I have been led by "God" to Buddhism anyway

 

[Breathe]

Beyond.
Plus, we need to define: What is God?

 

[Onkara]

Beyond. Don't start with the idea of God, start with your own existence and find what supports that and how it began, from looking within.

 

[zenzero]

Friend nameless,

Theism or non-theism are both the mind pendulum and there is nothing beyond is a personal understanding.
The mind needs to be transcended but the mind remains.
Gautama was pointing towards everyone being the part of IT [god] itself which is realized through meditation and he wanted everyone to meditate, transcend their own minds and understand that there is nothing as *god* which is separate than the *self*.
Jainism is similar in approach but rigid in practice which has led to alienation from acceptance by those who are not connected with the same [mostly]. Yes, both are *dharma* based and rooted in the eternal existence.

Love & rgds

 

[Storm]

I would simply call Buddhism agnostic. There are theistic and atheistic sects.

Jainism, I don't know enough to opine.

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddhism is agnostic, indeed, Storm. But the existence of atheistic and theistic sects is less than clear, at least to me. On the one hand, while I specifically chose it due to my own atheism, I've never quite managed to see any branch of it offering a clear denial of the existence of God. On the other one, even in Vajrayana it is often unclear how real the practice deities are supposed to be.

 

[Storm]

My point is that it embraces both views. To my knowledge, the Buddha himself never spoke on the matter.

I didn't vote for "Beyond," because that implies that it's left them behind.

 

[nameless]

Beyond. Don't start with the idea of God, start with your own existence and find what supports that and how it began, from looking within.

AGREED, Onkarah Ji....

im not sure, but i think for the same reason buddha and mahavira adopted this fashion of answering. By uniting all the existing possiblities, the thoughts are all stopped to still the mind to experience our own existence and awareness.

 

[Smoke]

I checked "beyond," as the best of the options given.

There are Buddhists who believe in gods and Buddhists who don't, but I don't know of any case in which gods have the kind of meaning and significance to Buddhists that they have in most Western religions, whether Abrahamic or pagan.

For myself, I'd say that even if gods existed they'd be irrelevant to my practice. I don't have anything against the veneration of gods if it pleases anybody to do it, but it seems superfluous.

 

[Onkara]

AGREED, Onkarah Ji....

im not sure, but i think for the same reason buddha and mahavira adopted this fashion of answering. By uniting all the existing possibilities, the thoughts are all stopped to still the mind to experience our own existence and awareness.

Hello my nameless friend. My impression is that the Buddhhist and Zen terminology is to stop thoughts or drop the mind etc. I personally find this difficult to grasp mentally it is a bit like a Buddhist Koan, as to understand how one can stop thoughts, automatically makes us start thinking about it, like a riddle. No sooner do we start looking to stop thoughts then it is as if our mind is full of them, this brings awareness to the forefront.

The Bhagavad Gita terminology is "steady the mind", or to keep the mind fixed and concentrated as this removes obstacles from the mind. The mind is not extinguished or anihiliated in Vedanta because the mind itself is a part of the parkirit, creation so there is no reason to try to destroy it or have no-mind.

For me progress comes through being aware of thoughts and the external world, rather than trying to stop thoughts or reach a state of no-mind. Partly because "stopping thoughts" implies doing and trying and can increase frustration. Awareness is key.

We are already experiencing our own existence. Rather experiences are the events IN our existence. I can watch experiences occuring around me, people coming and going, lunch time arriving, adding to a post etc, it is one stream of events and experiences which are known through my existance. It is your existance which makes all experiences possible. Watching this I find my existence (sat) is the foundation, and with existance itself come bliss(ananda) as a part of its inherent nature. That which knows and is aware (chit) of both existence and bliss is atman-Brahman, and you are That.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Buddha shows us in the Sutta's that the problem of contemplating about God is futile. Whether or not there is a god we are still suffering. Buddha said that wanting to know who god is, is like getting shot with an arrow and wanting to know who did it. Before you know who the ranger is, you could already be dead. Therefore, dont waste time on it. Buddha, from what I know, always stayed silent on the questions about God. Its wasnt important to Buddha how this world came into being, who did it, or anything like that. What he knew is that we are suffering and he found a way out.

Onkara, on thoughts and no-thoughts. From a Theravada Viewpoint, the Mind need not be destroyed. Thoughts are not inherently bad and thoughts are not ignorance. Ignorance is Ignorance. In Theravada we use the term "Mental Formations" not thoughts. That term means all thoughts, ideas, opinions, and other mental stuff. To eliminate all of that would be a sort of epistemological suicide. You would have know way to know anything. How did the Buddha teach without Mental Formations? He had them, but they were pure. Also, Theravadins look highly upon a developed Empirical Self, which is composed of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena. Simply not thinking will not eliminate problems, but could make new ones. To eliminate suffering, you do not need to eliminate mental formations. Sence they are an aggrigate like all of the others, why dont you eliminate the sense aggrigate, or the form aggrigate, or Consciousness aggrigate, why the Mental Formations? Just let them all blow off on their own. Just cut of the ignorance. Mental Formations are not suffering, they are not Ignorance, they are just mental formations, just another aggrigate. Dont be upset or moved by what it does.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Some Buddhists are atheistic and some are theistic. I'd say Buddhism makes theism or non-theism a non-issue.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Some Buddhists are atheistic and some are theistic. I'd say Buddhism makes theism or non-theism a non-issue.

^^ Right on the nose Senedjem

 

[Ordeet]

I don't think we can classify Buddhism or Jainism as being either atheistic or theistic. All Dharmic faiths can be interpreted as either polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, or atheistic depending on the person.

I think what's important for Buddhists and Jains is self-reliance on the individual, and not on gods and dogma. Which is why it differs deeply from Abrahamic faiths.