Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[Ekanta]

And crossfire, I see you avoided answering one of my posts:

And concerning the uncreated.... if the mind, skandas etc, being itself among the created (transient, subject to sorrow, lacking a self), how can a mere state of such a transient mind be the eternal uncreated?

 

[atanu]

Like I wrote earlier, original mind/pure consciousness is consciousness without the cultural contrivances and biases. It is undistorted by cultural devices, unshaped (unformed) by these cultural devices, and arises spontaneously from moment to moment without being formed/influenced/shaped by these cultural forming/shaping factors/biases.

OK. This pure consciousness/original mind of yours is not the uncreated that the Buddha spoke of.

And the Zen master that Ekanta cited is not talking of your pure consciousness -- surely.

 

[Ekanta]

You should investigate for yourself and experience for yourself!

Should I interpret that as: you are the Maitreya Buddha?

 

[atanu]

Below is what ekanta cited

"What is real, Ku [emptiness], is Being itself, Original Mind, Pure Consciousness, of which the world is the temporal manifestation...."


And you say that pure consciousness/original mind is supposed to be rising from moment to moment. This thing you are talking of is temporal, whereas in Ekanta's citation it specifically is not temporal.

Let us agree that we are talking of two different things.:

 

[crossfire]

Should I interpret that as: you are the Maitreya Buddha?

No. Are you?

 

[crossfire]

Below is what ekanta cited

"What is real, Ku [emptiness], is Being itself, Original Mind, Pure Consciousness, of which the world is the temporal manifestation...."


And you say that pure consciousness/original mind is supposed to be rising from moment to moment. This thing you are talking of is temporal, whereas in Ekanta's citation it specifically is not temporal.

Let us agree that we are talking of two different things.:

Then it would prolly be referring to the Taoist void, (Wuji-the infinite.) There was a lot of interesting discussion when the Buddha dhamma met Taoism. (From whence Zen came.) At first Taoism tried to equate the void from Taoism with Buddhist sunyata but they are not the same thing. However, there was certainly quite a bit of interesting, mindbending speculation around it, and the paradox created makes a tasty koan.

 

[Ekanta]

Then it would prolly be referring to the Taoist void, (Wuji-the infinite.) ... At first Taoism tried to equate the void from Taoism with Buddhist sunyata but they are not the same thing.

From the Heart Sutra (Mahayana)
iha sariputra rupam sunyata sunyataiva rupam
Here, O Sariputra, form is voidness; verily, voidness is form.
Heart Sutra -Sanskrit audio & text

The Japanese zen version:
shiki sokuze ku, ku sokuze shiki
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form
Seeing the essential similarity

rupa (form) is identical to the japanese shiki
sunyata (voidness) is identical to the japanese ku

 

[atanu]

Then it would prolly be referring to the Taoist void, (Wuji-the infinite.) There was a lot of interesting discussion when the Buddha dhamma met Taoism. (From whence Zen came.) At first Taoism tried to equate the void from Taoism with Buddhist sunyata but they are not the same thing. However, there was certainly quite a bit of interesting, mindbending speculation around it, and the paradox created makes a tasty koan.

Correct.

But your pure consciousness (as defined) is risen consciousness and not the uncreated-unformed substratum that helps discern the escape from the world of transmigration.

When a word such as discern is used, one should immediately understand as to exactly what it is. The risen consciousness is vijnana whereas the uncreated one is "'fundamental unconstructed awareness' (mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna)".

Unforunately most Buddhist writings on consciousness only talk of vijnana of 8 or nine types and rarely mention the mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna. One example is the following:Consciousness a Buddhist view | Sulekha Creative

Kindly note that the risen consciousness, such as eye consciousness etc. are called vijnana, whereas the uncreated one is simply mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna or prajnana

 

[crossfire]

All discernment is possible because there is uncreated-unformed-unborn. The mind rises from it but mind cannot be conscious of it. And that is the problem for most western minds and scientists.

Actually, I agree with you here.

 

[Ablaze]

I do not know, why forcibly, Buddhism has to be stripped of its spiritual base, by wilfully denying the uncreated that Buddha taught?

There is no denying the uncreated. However, the uncreated is clearly not God according to the Buddha, in any way, shape, or form. The uncreated is the extinguishing of suffering, nibbāna. One of the descriptives the Buddha applies to nibbāna is asaṅkhata, meaning unconditioned, uncompounded, unborn. Throughout the asaṅkhatasaṃyuttaṃ (the Book on the Unconditioned from the Samyutta Nikaya), the Buddha consistently equates nibbāna with asaṅkhata in the sense that the extinction of suffering (i.e., nibbāna) is a state beyond all conditioning (asaṅkhata) because the conditions for suffering are destroyed. For instance:

“asaṅkhatañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi asaṅkhatagāmiñca maggaṃ. taṃ suṇātha. katamañca, bhikkhave, asaṅkhataṃ? yo, bhikkhave, rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo — idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, asaṅkhataṃ."

"Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned. Listen to that...

"And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned."

asaṅkhatasaṃyuttaṃ: paṭhamavaggo (SN 43.1-43.11)

The various paths leading to the unconditioned, as explained by the Buddha, are:

"Mindfulness directed to the body: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.1)

"Serenity and insight: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.2)

"Concentration with thought and examination; concentration without thought, with examination only; concentration without thought and examination: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.3)

"The emptiness concentration, the signless concentration, the undirected concentration: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.4)

"The four establishments of mindfulness: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.5)

"The four right strivings: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.6)

"The four bases for spiritual power: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.7)

"The five spiritual faculties: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.8)

"The five powers: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.9)

"The seven factors of enlightenment: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.10)

The Noble Eightfold Path: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned." (SN 43.11)

Thus, asaṅkhata (the unconditioned) is defined as rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo - the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion. This is crystal clear. The unconditioned, nibbāna which is asaṅkhata, has no transempirical content, meaning it is neither God (or any other entity - personal, impersonal, or otherwise) nor Heaven (or any other place). It is not Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman. It is not Paramātmā or any other type of Ātman.

The uncondtioned, according to the Buddha himself, is not God.

 

[Ablaze]

Wasn't the Buddha saying to not just trust everything he said? To test things ourselves? What if someone experiences divinity, then should they throw that out of the window 'cause the Buddha said so?

Excuse my ignorance, trying to understand something here...

This is common misquote of the Kālāma Sutta (also known as the Kesamuttisutta&#7747 in which the Buddha actually advises his audience thus:

mā anussavena, (Do not believe something just because it has been passed along and retold for many generations.)

mā paramparāya, (Do not believe something merely because it has become a traditional practice.)

mā itikirāya, (Do not believe something simply because it is well-known everywhere.)

mā piṭakasampadānena, (Do not believe something just because it is cited in a text.)

mā takkahetu, (Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning.)

mā nayahetu, (Do not believe something merely because it accords with your philosophy.)

mā ākāraparivitakkena, (Do not believe something because it appeals to common sense.)

mā diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā, (Do not believe something just because you like the idea.)

mā bhabbarūpatāya, (Do not believe something because the speaker seems trustworthy.)

mā samaṇo no garūti. (Do not believe something thinking, “This is what our teacher says.")

yadā tumhe, kālāmā, attanāva jāneyyātha — ‘ime dhammā akusalā, ime dhammā sāvajjā, ime dhammā viññugarahitā, ime dhammā samattā samādinnā VAR ahitāya dukkhāya saṃvattantī’”ti, atha tumhe, kālāmā, pajaheyyātha.

(When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.)

yadā tumhe, kālāmā, attanāva jāneyyātha — ‘ime dhammā kusalā, ime dhammā anavajjā, ime dhammā viññuppasatthā, ime dhammā samattā samādinnā hitāya sukhāya saṃvattantī’ti, atha tumhe, kālāmā, upasampajja vihareyyātha.

(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 Sutta (AN 3.65)

The last two paragraphs are especially salient and bear repeating:

When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

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.

In Buddhism, it is understood that beliefs that fall under either of the false views (miccha diṭṭhi) of eternalism (sassatavada) or annihilationism (ucchedavada) are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by the wise, lead to harm and suffering, and should be abandoned. Belief in God clearly falls under the false view of eternalism (sassatavada miccha diṭṭhi) and requires abandonment, for it inevitably will lead to harm and suffering due to the delusion (avijjā) it entertains.

In the Buddhist framework, belief in God is something that does not lead to the extinction of suffering (nibbāna) and instead compounds it. This applies to Buddhism, and says nothing about other religious or spiritual paths and practitioners, who by all means may believe what they want. However, Buddhism itself does not accommodate belief in God.

 

[Ablaze]

Did Buddha ever say anything positive or negative like that?

See this statement from the Buddha, among plenty of others:

"All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

Gautama Buddha - लंकावतारसूत्र | Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

 

[atanu]

There is no denying the uncreated. However, the uncreated is clearly not God according to the Buddha, in any way, shape, or form. The uncreated is the extinguishing of suffering, nibbāna. One of the descriptives the Buddha applies to nibbāna is asaṅkhata, meaning unconditioned, uncompounded, unborn. Throughout the asaṅkhatasaṃyuttaṃ (the Book on the Unconditioned from the Samyutta Nikaya), the Buddha consistently equates nibbāna with asaṅkhata in the sense that the extinction of suffering (i.e., nibbāna) is a state beyond all conditioning (asaṅkhata) because the conditions for suffering are destroyed. For instance:



The various paths leading to the unconditioned, as explained by the Buddha, are:



Thus, asaṅkhata (the unconditioned) is defined as rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo - the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion. This is crystal clear. The unconditioned, nibbāna which is asaṅkhata, has no transempirical content, meaning it is neither God (or any other entity - personal, impersonal, or otherwise) nor Heaven (or any other place). It is not Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman. It is not Paramātmā or any other type of Ātman.

The uncondtioned, according to the Buddha himself, is not God.

Where did Buddha say it?

And go and find the link between the path (in red) and the assertion in blue. It is plain foolish. True, the unconditioned is not a person in the sense that there cannot be a second in order to say this is God and that is not God, yet the unconditioned is not a non-person and it alone impels Buddha to teach.

 

[Ablaze]

Anyone who knows the uncreated, becomes All -- whether you call such a being God or not is upto you.

Sure. In Buddhism, however (and we are after all in the Buddhism - Discuss Individual Religions sub-forum), there is no such notion of God. The Buddha rejected this idea. In other religions, it may be appropriate to call it God. In Buddhism, it is not.

 

[Ablaze]

Where did Buddha say it?

And go and find the link between the path (in red) and the assertion in blue. It is plain foolish. True, the unconditioned is not a person in the sense that there cannot be a second in order to say this is God and that is not God, yet the unconditioned is not a non-person and it alone impels Buddha to teach.

See the quote above from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, plus the several other posts throughout the last 20-30 pages of this thread in which numerous other quotes are given. Perhaps it would be wise to read the green. There is no need to call anyone foolish.

 

[Ablaze]

Another interesting instance in the Pali Canon worth considering:

"Vasettha, just as with a line of blind men clinging to each others backs, the man at the front sees nothing, the men in the middle see nothing and the man at the end sees nothing, so the words of the Three Vedas Brahmins can be compared to a line of blind men. That is, the first group of speakers didn't see Brahma, the next group of speakers didn't see Brahma and the last group of speakers didn't see Brahma. Thus, their words turn out to be ridiculous, low, vain and good-for-nothing."

Tevijja Sutta, Digha Nikaya 13

 

[atanu]

See this statement from the Buddha, among plenty of others:

No. All notions are imaginations. Uncreated is not a notion. And Buddha did not say that the uncreated was or was not God. That the uncreated is not God is your imagination. Since how does it matter whether it is called God or it is called the Uncreated?

Anyone who comes to know the uncreated will become the discernment in All, since the uncreated is the discernment. Such a Tathagata, we call Brahmavid. Such a Guru is God for a Hindu by the dictum Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Mahesvara. And obviously that holds true for Buddhists also. For them Buddha is the Guru.

 

[Ablaze]

In the Patika Sutta (Digha Nikaya 24) the Buddha shows that it is impossible for a God-like being to be the first cause (a common attribute given to God).

2.15.—17. '"There comes a time, friends, sooner or later after a long period, when this world contracts... Beings are born in the Abhassara Brahma world and stay there a long time. When this world expands, one being falls from there and arises in an empty Brahma palace. He longs for company, other beings appear, and he and they believe he created them (Sutta 1, verses 2.2—6). That, Reverend Sirs, is how it comes about that you teach that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma." And they said: "We have heard this, Reverend Gotama, as you have explained." But I know the first beginning of things... and not being under the sway of what I know I have come to know that quenching by the realization of which the Tathagata cannot fall into perilous ways."

Patika Sutta, Digha Nikaya 24

 

[Ablaze]

Furthermore, in the Kevatta Sutta (Digha Nikaya 11) the Buddha refutes the existence of an omniscient God:

When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'

"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'

Kevatta Sutta, Digha Nikaya 11

 

[Ablaze]

No. All notions are imaginations. Uncreated is not a notion. And Buddha did not say that the uncreated was or was not God. That the uncreated is not God is your imagination. Since how does it matter whether it is called God or it is called the Uncreated?

In Buddhism, notions of God are rejected. To call it God is meaningless in Buddhist practice, irrelevant and harmful in many ways due to the delusion it entertains through support of eternalistic thinking, which is one category of false views the Buddha vehemently rejected. You, however, are free to disagree from the stance of a Hindu. There is nothing wrong with that.

Anyone who comes to know the uncreated will become the discernment in All, since the uncreated is the discernment. Such a Tathagata, we call Brahmavid. Such a Guru is God for a Hindu by the dictum Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Mahesvara. And obviously that holds true for Buddhists also. For them Buddha is the Guru.

This is clearly, again, from your perspective as a Hindu. In Buddhism, the Buddha is not the same type of Guru as in Hinduism.