Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[Ablaze]

Do not be disheartened!

One thing about Buddhism is that is should be void of judgement. There is no such thing as a 'bad Buddhist' or a Buddhist who is 'doing it wrong', or who is foolish because they believe in god (small case or upper case!).

Those that judge a Buddhist, for any reason, it could be said are less Buddhist for doing so.

Believing in God (in whatever form) need nor detract not lessen your Buddhist practice one bit. You can be the perfect Buddhist, even achieve enlightenment or reach the Pure Lands, while believing in God.

I believe in an inifite first cause creator of the universe. I believe that the "I" that I am, is neither my body nor my mind, but an expression of God; the infitinite beloved. Yoga is a way of connecting and experiencing this, as a blissful awareness, not impeded by the thoughts of the mind.

Believing in a God within the context of Buddhism, is really no different to believing that a Ford is a better car than an a GM (or vice versa) within the context of Buddhism!

..... Interpret your reality as you experience it.

So you most certainly CAN believe in god as you see god, and be a happy and successful Buddhist.

:yes:

It's possible, but it's not internally consistent and will inevitably lead to various contradictions and confusion.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I really like Buddhism but I believe in God. Is there a way to meld the two?

I believe you can. Buddhists are not necessarily "Atheist" (although many of them are), but are more "Apatheist" than anything, and leave the belief in a personal god optional. Siddhārtha Gautamaa (Buddha) himself rejected the idea of a personal god, but also said "Don't believe anything I say, unless it matches with your experience." So, yes. I believe you can be Buddhist and believe in a god. Buddhism is not a religion (or philosophy) that tries to dictate what you can and cannot believe.

 

[Morning Star Dhamma]

It's possible, but it's not internally consistent and will inevitably lead to various contradictions and confusion.

Internal consistency is an illusion. People who believe they have arrived at an internally consistent worldview may well be overlooking a crucial blindspot where some delusion remains. Or they might simply be very much attached to the ego-driven need to regard oneself as logical and rational. But when we finally confront the internal inconsistency that inevitably underlies our unenlightened state of mind, then we have a chance to let go.

Beliefs are like pimples or baldness. They are just part of who we happen to be, and they come and go. Belief in God (and the various definitions and understandings of what "God" means vary considerably) is just one of many things that one can regard with equanimity and awareness; belief in God does not have to get in the way of our practice.

Beliefs are like shoes. Mine fit me, not you, but that doesn't make your feet bad. Old shoes fall apart. New shoes need breaking in.

Best wishes.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram triamphant ji :namaste

So, yes. I believe you can be Buddhist and believe in a god. Buddhism is not a religion (or philosophy) that tries to dictate what you can and cannot believe.

jai jai , .....what a beautifull releif to hear these words :namaste

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't believe that the Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Six Perfections or Five Precepts preclude the existence of God. Spending too much time contemplating God, the nature of the universe, ontology and soteriology may likely be an obstacle and stumbling block to practice. On the other hand, if all that works and gets you closer to enlightenment, why not? As in any religion or philosophy, Buddhism has its share of contradictions, interpretations and rigid dogma (which arise from interpretations). There are, after all, 84,000 dharma doors.

 

[ratikala]

I don't believe that the Three Jewels, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Six Perfections or Five Precepts preclude the existence of God. Spending too much time contemplating God, the nature of the universe, ontology and soteriology may likely be an obstacle and stumbling block to practice. On the other hand, if all that works and gets you closer to enlightenment, why not? As in any religion or philosophy, Buddhism has its share of contradictions, interpretations and rigid dogma (which arise from interpretations). There are, after all, 84,000 dharma doors.

jai jai , jai ji :namaste

exactly .... we were taught that upon meditating lord Buddha identified 84,000 deluded states of mind , reflecting upon this and realising the difficulty of teaching on such a large number of deluded mental states he taught on the three poisons , ....contemplation upon which is a fundamental part of Buddhism allthough not everyone uses this method .

to me abiding by rigid dogma is akin to the first poison ....'attatchment' which brings about 'anger' and the insuing blindness of 'ignorance' .

to my mind meditating upon the three poisons with an open mind will reveal the true nature of divinity and dispell attatchment to the rigid veiw of atheism .
Buddhism dosent need to be staunchly theistic or staunchly atheistic but should rest gently between the two with recognition of higher states of being , if some one wishes to equate these states with divine natures then no one should seek to destroy that realisation as it is personal .
if one were to see Vairocana as the embodiment of dharma , and then equate the faltless nature of dharma with divinity then one might envisage an eternaly divine being , which another may envisage as god , ...these are things to reflect upon rather than negate :namaste

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, adhering to dogma or rituals for their own sake is attachment. It is a cause of suffering. Though rituals have their place if they are performed "mindfully", a word Thich Nhat Hanh uses frequently. Reflection and meditation is the route to enlightenment, and meditation takes many forms.

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them." - Kālāma Sūtra

Additionally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Buddhism

 

[Ablaze]

Internal consistency is an illusion. People who believe they have arrived at an internally consistent worldview may well be overlooking a crucial blindspot where some delusion remains. Or they might simply be very much attached to the ego-driven need to regard oneself as logical and rational. But when we finally confront the internal inconsistency that inevitably underlies our unenlightened state of mind, then we have a chance to let go.

Beliefs are like pimples or baldness. They are just part of who we happen to be, and they come and go. Belief in God (and the various definitions and understandings of what "God" means vary considerably) is just one of many things that one can regard with equanimity and awareness; belief in God does not have to get in the way of our practice.

Beliefs are like shoes. Mine fit me, not you, but that doesn't make your feet bad. Old shoes fall apart. New shoes need breaking in.

Best wishes.

It is not internally consistent to embrace the foundational attributes of anattā, dukkha, and anicca while also embracing a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead. Simple as that. Belief in God does not have to get in the way of your practice, but it can generate needless confusion and contradiction.

 

[Ablaze]

I believe you can. Buddhists are not necessarily "Atheist" (although many of them are), but are more "Apatheist" than anything, and leave the belief in a personal god optional. Siddhārtha Gautamaa (Buddha) himself rejected the idea of a personal god, but also said "Don't believe anything I say, unless it matches with your experience." So, yes. I believe you can be Buddhist and believe in a god. Buddhism is not a religion (or philosophy) that tries to dictate what you can and cannot believe.

Yes, but ultimately, the practice of Buddhism is to shed all beliefs (and "dis-beliefs"), for they ultimately amount to clinging to views (ditthi-upādāna), a major impediment on the Buddhist path.

 

[Jainarayan]

It is not internally consistent to embrace the foundational attributes of anattā, dukkha, and anicca while also embracing a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead. Simple as that. Belief in God does not have to get in the way of your practice, but it can generate needless confusion and contradiction.

One does have to step lightly to make it work; I don't think Buddhism can support a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead either. However, I do think that it can support this http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3596618-post15.html, which also need not conflict with anattā, dukkha, and anicca, but rather, supports it. I think of Adi-Buddha and Buddha-dhātu.

 

[Ablaze]

to my mind meditating upon the three poisons with an open mind will reveal the true nature of divinity and dispell attatchment to the rigid veiw of atheism .
Buddhism dosent need to be staunchly theistic or staunchly atheistic but should rest gently between the two with recognition of higher states of being , if some one wishes to equate these states with divine natures then no one should seek to destroy that realisation as it is personal .
if one were to see Vairocana as the embodiment of dharma , and then equate the faltless nature of dharma with divinity then one might envisage an eternaly divine being , which another may envisage as god , ...these are things to reflect upon rather than negate :namaste

This involves a one-sided syncretic approach. Ultimately, eternally divine beings are not acknowledged in Buddhism. The supposed eternal nature of such beings is inherently contradictory, since all beings (as understood in Buddhist wisdom) arise and pass away, making them non-eternal. If atheism is a rigid view, theism is just as rigid. There is no "should" as you claim, in terms of the approach one may take. Practitioners may make up their own mind, neither negating nor affirming.

 

[Ablaze]

One does have to step lightly to make it work; I don't think Buddhism can support a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead either. However, I do think that it can support this http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3596618-post15.html, which also need not conflict with anattā, dukkha, and anicca, but rather, supports it. I think of Adi-Buddha and Buddha-dhātu.

How does that relate to God, though? Adi-Buddha and Buddha-dhātu are clearly not God-figures, regardless of the superficial resemblances.

 

[ratikala]

It is not internally consistent to embrace the foundational attributes of anattā, dukkha, and anicca while also embracing a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead. Simple as that. Belief in God does not have to get in the way of your practice, but it can generate needless confusion and contradiction.

how do you feel about the divine nature of vairocana as the embodiment of the sublime dharmakaya from where all buddhas manifest , and to where all buddhas return ?

 

[Jainarayan]

How does that relate to God, though? Adi-Buddha and Buddha-dhātu are clearly not God-figures, regardless of the superficial resemblances.

No they aren't, that is true. Remember that my conception of God is simply the basis of existence, or existence itself, not a "personality" or anthropomorphic being, or creator. I don't believe in a God in that usual sense.

 

[ratikala]

Yes, adhering to dogma or rituals for their own sake is attachment. It is a cause of suffering. Though rituals have their place if they are performed "mindfully", a word Thich Nhat Hanh uses frequently. Reflection and meditation is the route to enlightenment, and meditation takes many forms.

yes exactly , to reflect and meditate with a mind of nonattatchment , or to perfom ritual forms of worship out of respect and adherance to dicipline is a very different thing to performing rituals through attatchment to their results .

 

[Jainarayan]

Attachment sucks. I worry about how my furry kids (dogs and cat) would far if something happened to me. That is attachment. On the other hand, I think it's equally wrong to say "meh, who gives a crap, they'll be OK". I think that lacks compassion for their happiness and well-being. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[Morning Star Dhamma]

It is not internally consistent to embrace the foundational attributes of anattā, dukkha, and anicca while also embracing a self-existent, benevolent, eternal Godhead. Simple as that. Belief in God does not have to get in the way of your practice, but it can generate needless confusion and contradiction.

This assumes a certain specific definition and idea of God. It also does not account for the ways in which people incorporate their various views and dispositions into an overall approach to dealing with life. If there is confusion, it is not necessarily needless. And contradictions will be an issue even if one accepts the particular point of view that you have articulated here.

Your comment sets up a series of comparisons that I would like to address briefly:

Anatta versus "self-existent": God might be regarded as not-me, not-mine, not-self. The understanding of anatta applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. It is a pointless exercise to direct an analysis of anatta to some other perceived person or being and argue that he, she, or it does not have a self. From the perspective of practice, a God concept might actually help to cultivate an understanding of the anatta nature of reality. (Or it might not. This is merely to illustrate that there are other ways of looking at this issue.)

Dukkha versus "benevolent": Your argument appears to be that a benevolent God would not permit suffering. The understanding of Dukkha applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. It is pointless to theorize whether some other agent besides the greed, hatred, and delusion driving one's own kamma contributes to suffering. One the other hand, from the perspective of practice, a God concept might help one to understand metta.

Anicca versus "eternal": God might be regarded as renewing, transformative, creative, or even as the alpha and omega, the life and death, in other words, as everchanging reality. The understanding of anicca applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. When we do not understand anicca, this might lead to strong preferences for one thing over another, and to clinging. A God concept might help one to see past that and arrive at a better understanding of anicca.

The point is not that these views of God are correct or true or false. Rather, the point is that we do not know how a particular individual might conceptualize God, or internalize God concepts, or whether belief in God might be helpful or unhelpful.

We do know this: It is not Dhamma to disparage other faiths. It is not Dhamma to try to persuade others to come over to your ways of seeing things. If people believe in God, what business is that of ours? The beneficial teachings of Dhamma are as true for those people as for anyone else. There is no benefit in oversimplifying belief in God and making a blanket statement that such belief is always unhelpful, confusing, contradictory, and so on. Saying such things is not Dhamma.

Best wishes.

 

[Ablaze]

We do know this: It is not Dhamma to disparage other faiths. It is not Dhamma to try to persuade others to come over to your ways of seeing things. If people believe in God, what business is that of ours? The beneficial teachings of Dhamma are as true for those people as for anyone else. There is no benefit in oversimplifying belief in God and making a blanket statement that such belief is always unhelpful, confusing, contradictory, and so on. Saying such things is not Dhamma.

No one here is saying such things.

 

[Ablaze]

how do you feel about the divine nature of vairocana as the embodiment of the sublime dharmakaya from where all buddhas manifest , and to where all buddhas return ?

Not God.

 

[Ablaze]

This assumes a certain specific definition and idea of God. It also does not account for the ways in which people incorporate their various views and dispositions into an overall approach to dealing with life. If there is confusion, it is not necessarily needless. And contradictions will be an issue even if one accepts the particular point of view that you have articulated here.

Your comment sets up a series of comparisons that I would like to address briefly:

Anatta versus "self-existent": God might be regarded as not-me, not-mine, not-self. The understanding of anatta applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. It is a pointless exercise to direct an analysis of anatta to some other perceived person or being and argue that he, she, or it does not have a self. From the perspective of practice, a God concept might actually help to cultivate an understanding of the anatta nature of reality. (Or it might not. This is merely to illustrate that there are other ways of looking at this issue.)

Dukkha versus "benevolent": Your argument appears to be that a benevolent God would not permit suffering. The understanding of Dukkha applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. It is pointless to theorize whether some other agent besides the greed, hatred, and delusion driving one's own kamma contributes to suffering. One the other hand, from the perspective of practice, a God concept might help one to understand metta.

Anicca versus "eternal": God might be regarded as renewing, transformative, creative, or even as the alpha and omega, the life and death, in other words, as everchanging reality. The understanding of anicca applies to that which presents itself in one's own experience. When we do not understand anicca, this might lead to strong preferences for one thing over another, and to clinging. A God concept might help one to see past that and arrive at a better understanding of anicca.

The point is not that these views of God are correct or true or false. Rather, the point is that we do not know how a particular individual might conceptualize God, or internalize God concepts, or whether belief in God might be helpful or unhelpful.

We do know this: It is not Dhamma to disparage other faiths. It is not Dhamma to try to persuade others to come over to your ways of seeing things. If people believe in God, what business is that of ours? The beneficial teachings of Dhamma are as true for those people as for anyone else. There is no benefit in oversimplifying belief in God and making a blanket statement that such belief is always unhelpful, confusing, contradictory, and so on. Saying such things is not Dhamma.

Best wishes.

Perhaps it wasn't clear at first, phrased so succinctly. It may help to elaborate a bit more, step by step.

First consider the Buddha's teachings on the false appearance of immortality that leads sentient beings to fabricate the notion of an eternal God. For instance, in the Brahmanimantanika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 49) the Buddha explains how Baka Brahma, immersed in ignorance, falsely imagines himself to be constant, permanent, and eternal. This is complemented by another early discourse, the Brahmajala Sutta (Digha Nikaya 1) in which the Buddha explains how Brahma believes himself to be the first cause - "the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be" - based on his long life. Even god-like beings are subject to the three marks (tilakkhaṇa) that characterize all existence - 1.) impermanence/transience (anicca), 2.) imperfection/unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and 3.) impersonality/essencelessness (anatt&#257.

Anattā versus "self-existent": Despite the anomaly that occurs in the rare instances when an impersonal God might be regarded as "not-me, not-mine, not-self" (netam mama, nesohamasmi, na meso atta), it is still contradictory to attribute self-existence (the nature of being Uncaused, Uncreated, Unborn, etc.) of any sort to any such entity. A first cause and underlying substratum is rejected by all forms of Buddhism. (This does not imply that other faiths should be disparaged for believing otherwise. It likewise does not imply that it is necessary to persuade anyone to see things the same way. To suggest so is to set up a massive strawman and does not address the actual content of the discussion. As above, this is merely to illustrate that there are other ways of looking at this issue.)

Dukkha versus "benevolent": It is not that God (if one is assumed to exist) contributes to suffering, but that God allows it to occur, which is contradictory. The Buddha rejects this notion in the Tittha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 3.61). Surely, the concept of a God may assist with the cultivation of loving-kindness (mettā-bhāvan&#257. When the Buddha spoke with a Brahmin, he spoke in the language of the Brahmin, with terms the Brahmin could understand and relate to. For instance, in the Tevijja Sutta (Digha Nikaya 13) the Buddha describes God as a metaphor for different qualities of the heart. These include loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. In the Brahmavihara Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 10.208) the Buddha describes these "abodes of the gods" (brahmavihāras), noting that the gods represent the embodiment of the aforementioned qualities. They are symbolic devices.

Anicca versus "eternal": God, whether personal or impersonal, is by nature defined as a permanent substratum to existence. Despite being a so-called "everchanging" life force in the minds of some, there is nonetheless something about it that pervades all things and neither arises nor passes away. This crosses the line into the mistaken view of eternalism (sassatavada), which again contradicts direct experience.

On and on we go. Sabbe sattā sukhi hontu. May all beings be truly happy.