What is the import or centrality of polytheism to Buddhism?
Is the belief in devas common? Is it necessary?
Thanks.
Is the belief in devas common? Is it necessary?
Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddhism: Polytheism
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
No it's not, and it might help us further if you'd offer your definition of "polytheism".
What I think you refer to is the "deities" found in Mahayana Buddhism. Unlike the western systems, these dieties aren't gods. Niether are they meant to represent real beings. Rather, they represent qualities of enlightened beings in various aspects. They may based on historical figures, to some degree, but they have long since transcended historical context.
Practices involving deities is quite common in the Mahayana world and becomes more so as a student approaches Vajrayana. Kriya Yoga practices like Avalokiteshvara, Tara and so on are what many Mahayana students practice. Post-Ngondro practice usually involves a meditational deity such as Vajrayogini.
Dakinis, Devas, Bodhisattvas, Hungry Ghosts and so on are important in what the represent, not so much that they exist.
But, using deities in practice are not necesssary at all. You can get along just fine without them.
It would seem you're somewhat prejudiced against such things. That's not to say that's a Bad Thing; some people gravitate towards deity yoga and others don't. If so, I'd say steer clear of Mahayana.
What I think you refer to is the "deities" found in Mahayana Buddhism. Unlike the western systems, these dieties aren't gods. Niether are they meant to represent real beings. Rather, they represent qualities of enlightened beings in various aspects. They may based on historical figures, to some degree, but they have long since transcended historical context.
Practices involving deities is quite common in the Mahayana world and becomes more so as a student approaches Vajrayana. Kriya Yoga practices like Avalokiteshvara, Tara and so on are what many Mahayana students practice. Post-Ngondro practice usually involves a meditational deity such as Vajrayogini.
Dakinis, Devas, Bodhisattvas, Hungry Ghosts and so on are important in what the represent, not so much that they exist.
But, using deities in practice are not necesssary at all. You can get along just fine without them.
It would seem you're somewhat prejudiced against such things. That's not to say that's a Bad Thing; some people gravitate towards deity yoga and others don't. If so, I'd say steer clear of Mahayana.
Last edited:
You can easily think of a deva as an egregore that has "taken on a life of its own," so to speak.
Polytheism is common among Buddhists. The gods are seen as conditioned beings like us, though their life-spans may be longer. Belief in gods does not conflict with Buddhism, they are seen as superhuman beings whom we share the universe with. It is the concept of an eternal first cause type of god that is outright rejected in Buddhism.
Regarding the question of necessity, the gods have no role to play in leading us to realize Nibbana (Nirvana). Still, if you believe they are there, it would be polite to wish them well. The gods are friendly and are willing to help us when they can.
Regarding the question of necessity, the gods have no role to play in leading us to realize Nibbana (Nirvana). Still, if you believe they are there, it would be polite to wish them well. The gods are friendly and are willing to help us when they can.
b.finton
In the Unity of Faith
I understand the Elohim of Torah to be the Life Principles within the Kingdom of Names, as well. I believe the code of those principles is embedded in the features of the Sinaitic script of Moses, which is known by many names. These Letters-- these Principles, these Elohim-- dance with Words of Life at many levels of understanding. Their full expression embraces each of our perspectives, to the end that all thought answers to Understanding, enabling Wisdom to walk among us because we recognize its presence within all living. Expression is form, not substance. The fullness of expression is Yahushua, the Salvation/Projection of Yah.
I further understand the messages to the Churches of Asia as applicable to the seven chakras. The import of the messages concerns focused work. This is akin to hatha yoga in the context of bhakti yoga, in which formation of the dalet/dalet (the Shield of David) by means of the central nervous system is a first priority. This is akin to a unison of higher and lower centers of being.
The key is unison. Until the Unity perceived by so many is perceived within all, peace-- nirvana-- can never be savored peacefully: the pull of suffering is intolerable to those who have tasted Life.
b.
Polytheism isn't completely incompatible with Buddhism.
It is not really encouraged, either.
The Devas are far more of a Hindu concept than a Buddhist one. Belief in their existence is common in the demographic sense, mainly due to syncretism, and even then almost only in Asia.
For the most part the Devas are used in a very few (albeit influential) schools, mainly as a convenient illustration of certain concepts. Frankly, I would be surprised if I ever learned that belief in their literal existence is a common trait among Dharma teachers.
Thank you.
Your ability to give a definitive answer to my question suggests otherwise.
Excellent comment. Thank you again.
Thank you.
Clearly it is not up to me, but I would ask that you keep any comments pertinent to the topic of "the import or centrality of polytheism to Buddhism."
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In cases a polytheistic culture typically tends to incorporate elements that get grafted in with Buddhism creating essentially a hybrid of belief and practice, or depicted metaphorically as god's, demons, angels etc.
Nat worship or Shinto make good illustrations of such an incorporation. Maybe a cultural necessity in a traditional sense, but not as a direct practice where polytheism presents a hinderence due to attachments created through belief.
Nat worship or Shinto make good illustrations of such an incorporation. Maybe a cultural necessity in a traditional sense, but not as a direct practice where polytheism presents a hinderence due to attachments created through belief.
This used to be a green DIR, remember? Suit yourself.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Jayhawker ji
the importance and centrality differs very much between traditions , none the less from my experience of native or indiginous Buddists the beleif , and reliance upon Buddhas and Devaas (even in Theravada traditions) is far more prevalant than in western traditions .
true they are not Gods in that God , Gods is a translation for the benifit of the western speaking world they are Buddhas , ...(perfected beings) , Bodhisattvas , Devas , Gandhavas , Apsaras........(of which there is a hierachy so to speak)
the Deities of Mahayana Buddhism are for the most part Buddhas or Bodhisattvas which in terms of there being a Hierachy are higer beings that the Devas (Gods) , ...the majority of the Deities in Mahayana Buddhism are personifications of enlightenment and some respects all stem form the one primordial being 'AdiBuddha' (known by different names in different traditions) .
in the instances that as you say they are ''based on historical figures'', such as Padmasambava these are not ordinary beings although they manifested as such at a point in time , ...they them selves canot or do not trancend their human form it is more that our realisation of their true nature now sees , regards , worships and seeks guidance from them in their Deity form , ....
they do not exist in the material form we mistakenly think to be existance , but they very much exist as etherial beings that have the power to manifest in form as we know it for the benifit of embodied beings , ....this makes them more real that us ourselves , as our nature of embodiment is fleeting , imperminant and very limited in understanding . ..in short due to our embodied nature we are subject to dellusion and ignorance , our grasp of reality is poor . ...so for us to pass judgement upon the existance of Buddhas , devas ...etc is almost impossible as we lack the clarity of judgement .(due to pur seeing everything in terms relating to our own temporary existance)
agreed no it is nor nececary for all , ..as one traped in the cycle of birth and death (and the conditioning resultant from that embodiment ) ... needs first to break that conditioned way of seeing , this may be done by simply accepting the teachings of the Buddha (of this age ) accepting the Four Noble Truths and following the Eight Fold Path , this may the chosen path for many where by Deity Yoga is un nececary , but it must be accepted that there are prectitioners of
different scopes .
there are those whos gratitude and understanding is such that the worship of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas comes as naturaly as it would to one who is thankfull for the true blessings this life bestows upon us .
p.s. ... Devas them selves are revered but not worshiped as such .
the importance and centrality differs very much between traditions , none the less from my experience of native or indiginous Buddists the beleif , and reliance upon Buddhas and Devaas (even in Theravada traditions) is far more prevalant than in western traditions .
true they are not Gods in that God , Gods is a translation for the benifit of the western speaking world they are Buddhas , ...(perfected beings) , Bodhisattvas , Devas , Gandhavas , Apsaras........(of which there is a hierachy so to speak)
the Deities of Mahayana Buddhism are for the most part Buddhas or Bodhisattvas which in terms of there being a Hierachy are higer beings that the Devas (Gods) , ...the majority of the Deities in Mahayana Buddhism are personifications of enlightenment and some respects all stem form the one primordial being 'AdiBuddha' (known by different names in different traditions) .
in the instances that as you say they are ''based on historical figures'', such as Padmasambava these are not ordinary beings although they manifested as such at a point in time , ...they them selves canot or do not trancend their human form it is more that our realisation of their true nature now sees , regards , worships and seeks guidance from them in their Deity form , ....
they do not exist in the material form we mistakenly think to be existance , but they very much exist as etherial beings that have the power to manifest in form as we know it for the benifit of embodied beings , ....this makes them more real that us ourselves , as our nature of embodiment is fleeting , imperminant and very limited in understanding . ..in short due to our embodied nature we are subject to dellusion and ignorance , our grasp of reality is poor . ...so for us to pass judgement upon the existance of Buddhas , devas ...etc is almost impossible as we lack the clarity of judgement .(due to pur seeing everything in terms relating to our own temporary existance)
agreed no it is nor nececary for all , ..as one traped in the cycle of birth and death (and the conditioning resultant from that embodiment ) ... needs first to break that conditioned way of seeing , this may be done by simply accepting the teachings of the Buddha (of this age ) accepting the Four Noble Truths and following the Eight Fold Path , this may the chosen path for many where by Deity Yoga is un nececary , but it must be accepted that there are prectitioners of
different scopes .
there are those whos gratitude and understanding is such that the worship of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas comes as naturaly as it would to one who is thankfull for the true blessings this life bestows upon us .
p.s. ... Devas them selves are revered but not worshiped as such .
Namaste, ratikala. I appreciate your input.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Von bek ji
whilst I can agree with you entirely about the position pf Devas (Gods), ...I would not go so far as to say that Buddhism 'oughtrightly rejects' the eternality or a fountain head of all material phenomena , ...how ever it is true that Sakyamuni Buddha did not teach on this point , neither did he deny it , it is later Buddhism inparticular some schools of western Buddhism that has taken the stance of oughtright rejection .
namsakaram Luis ji
Dharma is a Hindu concept , Buddhism it self is a re flowering of that principle therefore there is irrational to atribute the existance of Devas to syncretism , ......and as Aisa ia the birth place of Buddhism it would be highly incorect for us as Western Buddhists to reject principles embraced by the indigionous Buddhist comunities .
if by the '' very few (albeit influential) schools'' you refer to is Mahayana Buddhism then ''influential'' would be correct , but ''very few'' is not exactly representational , ...However in this instance these Deities are not Devas but manifestations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which are very different to Devas , it is understandable that from outside of dharmic faiths others may veiw the Deity forms as Gods , but from within we must be a little more carefull to understand the relevance of such Deities and give them a little more respect even if Deity Yoga is not prevalent in our own tradition .
whilst I can agree with you entirely about the position pf Devas (Gods), ...I would not go so far as to say that Buddhism 'oughtrightly rejects' the eternality or a fountain head of all material phenomena , ...how ever it is true that Sakyamuni Buddha did not teach on this point , neither did he deny it , it is later Buddhism inparticular some schools of western Buddhism that has taken the stance of oughtright rejection .
namsakaram Luis ji
Dharma is a Hindu concept , Buddhism it self is a re flowering of that principle therefore there is irrational to atribute the existance of Devas to syncretism , ......and as Aisa ia the birth place of Buddhism it would be highly incorect for us as Western Buddhists to reject principles embraced by the indigionous Buddhist comunities .
if by the '' very few (albeit influential) schools'' you refer to is Mahayana Buddhism then ''influential'' would be correct , but ''very few'' is not exactly representational , ...However in this instance these Deities are not Devas but manifestations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which are very different to Devas , it is understandable that from outside of dharmic faiths others may veiw the Deity forms as Gods , but from within we must be a little more carefull to understand the relevance of such Deities and give them a little more respect even if Deity Yoga is not prevalent in our own tradition .
I wish you had left such posts for outside the DIR, because I take it that you are kidding or else rather heavily biased and I will therefore need to be slightly incisive to clarify matters.
That is not really something that should happen in a DIR, but it may be too late.
Surely you realize Dharma is a stance towards religion, one that can and does recur without the Devas, without Hindu influence even, as best exemplified in Taoism. To claim that the Devas are a necessary part of Dharma is in direct conflict with the unquestioned facts. I wonder why you make such a claim.
Except that it is the duty of a good Dharmi to make the Dharma his own, to learn and live it as opposed to parrot without reflection.
Besides, the Buddha Dharma specifically states explicitly that one should not follow this advice of yours.
I do not. Nor do I mean Vajrayana, because the Devas are really only present in the Tibetan schools, which are not one and the same as Vajrayana.
I mostly agree, although I will not follow your understanding of what would be proper respect to the relevance of deities, as is to be expected.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
"Polytheism" is a word that potentially means a wide range of things, so it's hard to give a simple answer to the question.
Buddhism comes out of the ancient Vedic tradition in India, a culture that recognized a wide variety of gods and other spiritual beings. Buddhist myths and scriptures often feature those beings, some of whom are also found in Vedic literature. Whenever Buddhism encountered a new culture, it assimilated bits of that culture's myths and deities and adapted to them rather than replacing them. In short, Buddhism is not a religion like Christianity that claims a monopoly on people's hearts and minds and attempts to wipe out what came before. There is no expectation that people will stop believing in their culture's traditional gods or performing rituals that involve them.
That said, theism of any sort is of relatively little importance in Buddhism, strictly speaking. The point of the religion is not to commune with gods or try to please them. Insofar as devas and other godlike beings feature in the religion, they are framed as protectors of the Dharma, fellow travelers, and at most senior peers, not lords and masters in the literal sense. Buddhist thought categorically rejects the notion that any being can be eternal, omnipotent, etc., so even gods would ultimately be fallible and in the same boat we are in, even if they happened to be exceptionally powerful and long-lived from our perspective. Also, Buddhism deconstructs the concept of existence to the point where the question of the existence of gods is moot. No individual being has essential existence, so whether gods are literal beings or conceptual representations is more a matter of perspective than objective fact. That's simply not a debate that Buddhists have traditionally been interested in having.
The veneration of Buddhas and bodhisattvas probably looks like polytheism to most people, but there are key differences. For one thing, the big named bodhisattvas are personifications of universal mental qualities that everyone on the path is trying to cultivate. They're not literally separate beings from you. At the same time, the reverence paid to them is a kind of religious practice intended to cultivate gratitude towards all the beings who have helped us along the way, even if we didn't notice at the time, as well as encouraging people to take on that role themselves. People bow before images of them, not to debase themselves or to stroke the egos of the bodhisattvas (they have no ego to stroke), but to practice selflessness and awe in the face of infinite love and compassion that leads one to the desire to save all beings.
If the question is whether Buddhism is compatible with, say, Judaism, I'd say that depends entirely on one's understanding of Judaism. One of the members of our sangha is a Jew, goes to synagogue, and also attends retreats where we do prostrations of thanksgiving in the name of all the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and great teachers who have made it possible for us to encounter the Dharma in this life. He sees no problem with it. At the same time, I brought my Christian friend to the meditation group once, and she was clearly antsy about all the bowing (Buddhists frequently bow to images of Buddhas, to the teacher, to the practice space, to the cushions they sit on, to each other, and pretty much everything else), though it might have just been a reflex. Taboos can be very ingrained without people's ever really thinking about them or how they came to be, much less thinking about how similar outward actions can have profoundly different meanings in different cultural contexts.
Buddhism comes out of the ancient Vedic tradition in India, a culture that recognized a wide variety of gods and other spiritual beings. Buddhist myths and scriptures often feature those beings, some of whom are also found in Vedic literature. Whenever Buddhism encountered a new culture, it assimilated bits of that culture's myths and deities and adapted to them rather than replacing them. In short, Buddhism is not a religion like Christianity that claims a monopoly on people's hearts and minds and attempts to wipe out what came before. There is no expectation that people will stop believing in their culture's traditional gods or performing rituals that involve them.
That said, theism of any sort is of relatively little importance in Buddhism, strictly speaking. The point of the religion is not to commune with gods or try to please them. Insofar as devas and other godlike beings feature in the religion, they are framed as protectors of the Dharma, fellow travelers, and at most senior peers, not lords and masters in the literal sense. Buddhist thought categorically rejects the notion that any being can be eternal, omnipotent, etc., so even gods would ultimately be fallible and in the same boat we are in, even if they happened to be exceptionally powerful and long-lived from our perspective. Also, Buddhism deconstructs the concept of existence to the point where the question of the existence of gods is moot. No individual being has essential existence, so whether gods are literal beings or conceptual representations is more a matter of perspective than objective fact. That's simply not a debate that Buddhists have traditionally been interested in having.
The veneration of Buddhas and bodhisattvas probably looks like polytheism to most people, but there are key differences. For one thing, the big named bodhisattvas are personifications of universal mental qualities that everyone on the path is trying to cultivate. They're not literally separate beings from you. At the same time, the reverence paid to them is a kind of religious practice intended to cultivate gratitude towards all the beings who have helped us along the way, even if we didn't notice at the time, as well as encouraging people to take on that role themselves. People bow before images of them, not to debase themselves or to stroke the egos of the bodhisattvas (they have no ego to stroke), but to practice selflessness and awe in the face of infinite love and compassion that leads one to the desire to save all beings.
If the question is whether Buddhism is compatible with, say, Judaism, I'd say that depends entirely on one's understanding of Judaism. One of the members of our sangha is a Jew, goes to synagogue, and also attends retreats where we do prostrations of thanksgiving in the name of all the Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and great teachers who have made it possible for us to encounter the Dharma in this life. He sees no problem with it. At the same time, I brought my Christian friend to the meditation group once, and she was clearly antsy about all the bowing (Buddhists frequently bow to images of Buddhas, to the teacher, to the practice space, to the cushions they sit on, to each other, and pretty much everything else), though it might have just been a reflex. Taboos can be very ingrained without people's ever really thinking about them or how they came to be, much less thinking about how similar outward actions can have profoundly different meanings in different cultural contexts.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Luis ji
Luis you know full well that I take Buddism far to serioiusly to be kidding and yes I am heavily biased , but that is heavily biased in favour of correct historical understanding , .....
am I to take it from this coment that you may bring Hinduism into the conversation but I may not ???
however as our dear freind Vishvavraja points out , ...
not to mention a heirachy of higher levels of reality upon which such beings operate .
jai jai
Luis I think we should not fear the existance of Devas or spirits we should just understand their position .
Luis again you missunderstand me , my clain was not that Devas are a nececary part of Dharma , but more that we should try to understand their common ancestry . (therefore have no fear of their existance)
what is more important is that you realise the difference betweeen ''Buddhas and Bodhisattvas'', and ''Devas and Apsaras'', .... what I had tried to point out to you is that whilst it is understandable for someone from a non Dharmic tradition to confuse the two , we should not!
As you well know Dharma implies not only duty but also Law , so the Duty of a true Dharmini is to follow his prescribed Sadhana , it is not so much matter of making it ones own or selecting portions of it that apeal to his already existant veiw , but more a matter of surrendering oneself to an unchanging universal law , which means letting go of preconceived Ideas and attatchments and submitting to a strictly diciplined and systematic path , agreed it has nothing to do with parroting it out , and everything to do with reflection . equaly we should not just blindly dismiss the observations of another practitioner without reflection upon the possibility of attatchment within our own veiw .
which advice is this which you deem to be so adharmic that it should not be followed ? ....that we behave respectfuly to the indiginous Buddhist traditions with out the vaingloriously attatched veiw that we are so damned inteligent that we of course know better ???
again you confuse Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with Devas , ......indiginous Theavada traditions are awash with Devas the tibetan schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana center around Deity yoga these Deities being Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which far from being Devas are manifestations of ultimate reality , of Buddha mind .
and if this is not what you meant then what did you mean ? .......please explain .
you talk about using Devas as if they were objects ot comodities , ...please explain exactly what you are meaning ?
whith which part do you agree ? .....unfortunatly I canot ever remember you engaging with me in any conversation about what might constitute ''proper respect to the relevance of Deities'' ...I only remember constant attempts to negate their relevance .
prehaps this would be an interesting topic for discussion ?
Luis you know full well that I take Buddism far to serioiusly to be kidding and yes I am heavily biased , but that is heavily biased in favour of correct historical understanding , .....
am I to take it from this coment that you may bring Hinduism into the conversation but I may not ???
however as our dear freind Vishvavraja points out , ...
not to mention a heirachy of higher levels of reality upon which such beings operate .
jai jai
Luis I think we should not fear the existance of Devas or spirits we should just understand their position .
Luis again you missunderstand me , my clain was not that Devas are a nececary part of Dharma , but more that we should try to understand their common ancestry . (therefore have no fear of their existance)
what is more important is that you realise the difference betweeen ''Buddhas and Bodhisattvas'', and ''Devas and Apsaras'', .... what I had tried to point out to you is that whilst it is understandable for someone from a non Dharmic tradition to confuse the two , we should not!
As you well know Dharma implies not only duty but also Law , so the Duty of a true Dharmini is to follow his prescribed Sadhana , it is not so much matter of making it ones own or selecting portions of it that apeal to his already existant veiw , but more a matter of surrendering oneself to an unchanging universal law , which means letting go of preconceived Ideas and attatchments and submitting to a strictly diciplined and systematic path , agreed it has nothing to do with parroting it out , and everything to do with reflection . equaly we should not just blindly dismiss the observations of another practitioner without reflection upon the possibility of attatchment within our own veiw .
which advice is this which you deem to be so adharmic that it should not be followed ? ....that we behave respectfuly to the indiginous Buddhist traditions with out the vaingloriously attatched veiw that we are so damned inteligent that we of course know better ???
again you confuse Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with Devas , ......indiginous Theavada traditions are awash with Devas the tibetan schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana center around Deity yoga these Deities being Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which far from being Devas are manifestations of ultimate reality , of Buddha mind .
and if this is not what you meant then what did you mean ? .......please explain .
you talk about using Devas as if they were objects ot comodities , ...please explain exactly what you are meaning ?
whith which part do you agree ? .....unfortunatly I canot ever remember you engaging with me in any conversation about what might constitute ''proper respect to the relevance of Deities'' ...I only remember constant attempts to negate their relevance .
prehaps this would be an interesting topic for discussion ?
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Vishvavajra ji
agreed this is very probably the cause of much confusion .
Jai Jai , ...infact what is very important is that we learn to surrender our own egos and return that infinate love by way of gratitude in which case our bowing before Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is a pure display of that love and reverance .
the responce you recount here is so very interesting I have noticed very similar responces from those from christian backgrounds , my father inparticular being prestbeterian is very fearfull of Idolatry therfore would missconstrue the reverence of gratitude , ...this I fear has lead to much missunderstanding .
agreed this is very probably the cause of much confusion .
Jai Jai , ...infact what is very important is that we learn to surrender our own egos and return that infinate love by way of gratitude in which case our bowing before Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is a pure display of that love and reverance .
the responce you recount here is so very interesting I have noticed very similar responces from those from christian backgrounds , my father inparticular being prestbeterian is very fearfull of Idolatry therfore would missconstrue the reverence of gratitude , ...this I fear has lead to much missunderstanding .