Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[atanu]

Hi friends and especially hello to Crossfire and Ablaze

I have deleted most of my posts made with an awful awful mind and awful mood yesterday. I ask to be forgiven for intruding upon a Dir thread. Sorry. I have a very bad intuition system and all the time I was rehearsing in mind 'accident accident ...' and in the morning my daughter has indeed met with one.

Anyway from my understanding, which may not be of any value of course, I will make a single post as response to the OP.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram:namaste

Why not ?

You say that these paths have the same outcome. But most buddhists (practicing buddhists, not pseudo-intellectual web forum dilettantes such as we see so many of here) would disagree.

dearest freind that would be assuming that all these practicing buddhists have allready reached their destination ? ....?

You and I have not had the same outcome, as far as I can tell. For me, the outcome was, among other things, that all those ideas of 'god' and other examples of metaphysical imagination were seen to be neurosis and, fortunately, as unnecessary as they are imaginary.

are you still walking the path or do you beleive you have attained buddhahood ?

 

[crossfire]

Hi friends and especially hello to Crossfire and Ablaze

I have deleted most of my posts made with an awful awful mind and awful mood yesterday. I ask to be forgiven for intruding upon a Dir thread. Sorry. I have a very bad intuition system and all the time I was rehearsing in mind 'accident accident ...' and in the morning my daughter has indeed met with one.

Anyway from my understanding, which may not be of any value of course, I will make a single post as response to the OP.

Aww, I wish you would have left your posts up. :sad:
You have been relatively polite in this thread.

 

[atanu]

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

I believe there is, as reasoned below.

Buddha teaches that distinct from the impermanence of this world there is an uncreated, unformed, and unborn without which the escape from this samsara (basically a bondage to some or other form of desire that forces an ego self to take birth again and again) cannot be effected and also cannot be discerned.

In essence, this is the timeless substratum that holds up all experiences and all knowledge. This is the power of discernment.

We from Hindu stream call it Brahman, which again is unborn, uncreated, unformed. It is called prajnanam, which approximately means 'precursor to awareness-consciousness' or 'great wisdom'. Some explain it as that which reveals the consciousness but is not itself revealed.

Buddha knows it and that makes Him a Buddha, Bhagavan - a Lord. Indeed, Buddha is called a Bhagavan in most of His discourses. Bhagavan, again approximately, means 'Lord', possessor of all opulences in full. There are many Buddhas and the main criteria, in my understanding, is that they know the uncreated-unborn-unformed timeless substratum that supports all, unlike us who have no experience/knowledge of the uncreated-unborn.

In Hindu stream, there are similar brahmavid-s -- knower of Brahman, who are called Bhagavan. Such as Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi, to give one example.
Knower of Brahman is nothing but Brahman. All knowers of Brahman are not different from non-dual Brahman.

Though appearance wise Buddhas and Brahmavid-s may be many but for a Brahmavid there is no other truth but the non-dual uncreated-unborn.

Now, that being the case, in Hindu stream, Brahmavids are worshipped as God, as Bhagawan. It is said that the Guru (the teacher) is greater than the God.

How is that very different in Buddhism? For Buddhists, Buddha is Bhagawan. I will just cite one passage from Lankavatara Sutra, which was suggested by Ablaze, to show the importance of reverence to the Buddhas.

From Lankaavatara Sutra

Further, Mahamati, there are two kinds of the sustaining power which issues from the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones; and sustained by this power [the Bodhisattvas] would prostrate themselves at their feet and ask them questions.​

In summary. The fully enlightened ones are knowers of the uncreated, unformed, unborn that is the power of discernment in all of us. The fully enlightened ones are the Gurus and teachers who are called Bhagawan in both Hindu and Buddhist streams. Hindu stream also teaches that Guru is God. And as we have seen above, in Buddhist stream also, the fully enlightened ones are understood as the sustainers of the Bodhisattvas, who are enjoined to prostrate to the Arhats.

--------

There are some who mock the so-called syncretists. But the Veda says "the Truth is One, sages call it differently". The differences are in the upayas, the methods. But the reality is not many. And reverence to the non-dual reality and to those who are knowers of the non dual reality as their own wisdom, is not prohibited in any spiritual school.

(Rambled a lot).

 

[Ablaze]

I believe there is, as reasoned below.

This belief does not match reality as understood in Buddhism and by the Buddha.

Buddha teaches that distinct from the impermanence of this world there is an uncreated, unformed, and unborn without which the escape from this samsara (basically a bondage to some or other form of desire that forces an ego self to take birth again and again) cannot be effected and also cannot be discerned.

In Buddhism, this is called Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is release from Saṃsāra. Nirvāṇa means extinction, cessation, extinguishing. Nirvāṇa is the cessation of suffering. This is not Brahman.

In essence, this is the timeless substratum that holds up all experiences and all knowledge. This is the power of discernment.

False, as there is no timeless substratum acknowledged by the Buddha or by Buddhism. This is a Hindu concept that is being mistakenly projected onto the Buddha's teachings. In his rejection of an attā through his teachings of anattā, the Buddha denied the existence of any permanent substratum to the universe, such as a God comparable to the Indian notion of Brahman. This applies equally to Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra.

We from Hindu stream call it Brahman, which again is unborn, uncreated, unformed. It is called prajnanam, which approximately means 'precursor to awareness-consciousness' or 'great wisdom'. Some explain it as that which reveals the consciousness but is not itself revealed.

At least now it is being acknowledged that these are projections from the perspective of Hinduism. This concept is not found in Buddhism.

Buddha knows it and that makes Him a Buddha, Bhagavan - a Lord. Indeed, Buddha is called a Bhagavan in most of His discourses. Bhagavan, again approximately, means 'Lord', possessor of all opulences in full. There are many Buddhas and the main criteria, in my understanding, is that they know the uncreated-unborn-unformed timeless substratum that supports all, unlike us who have no experience/knowledge of the uncreated-unborn.

Bhagavān in the Buddhist framework has nothing to do with God or Brahman. It is a term of respect for the Buddha, as in the refrain "namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassā," meaning "Homage to the Blessed One, the Exalted One, the Fully Enlightened One." These words are chanted as a form of respect, not as a form of worship. The Buddha is not a "possessor" of anything, ultimately. The fully enlightened ones do not "possess" anything.

Furthermore, in Buddhism, there is no substratum whatsoever. The Buddha knows Nirvāṇa, the cessation of suffering, which is not God, not Brahman, not a substratum. In Buddhism, Nirvāṇa is the uncreated-unborn-unformed. However, Nirvāṇa is not a substratum in any sense of the word. Nirvāṇa is the cessation of suffering. Like the Buddha teaches in the Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta, the unconditioned (asaṅkhata) is the cessation of suffering (nibbāna) through the destruction of lust (rāgakkhayo), the destruction of hatred (dosakkhayo), and the destruction of delusion (mohakkhayo). Therefore:

asaṅkhata = rāgakkhayo + dosakkhayo + mohakkhayo = nibbāna

Unconditioned = destruction of lust + destruction of hatred + destruction of delusion = Cessation of Suffering

This is the Buddhist perspective on the unconditioned.

In Hindu stream, there are similar brahmavid-s -- knower of Brahman, who are called Bhagavan. Such as Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi, to give one example.
Knower of Brahman is nothing but Brahman. All knowers of Brahman are not different from non-dual Brahman.

This is the Hindu perspective, not the Buddhist perspective.

Though appearance wise Buddhas and Brahmavid-s may be many but for a Brahmavid there is no other truth but the non-dual uncreated-unborn.

This is the Hindu perspective, not the Buddhist perspective.

Now, that being the case, in Hindu stream, Brahmavids are worshipped as God, as Bhagawan. It is said that the Guru (the teacher) is greater than the God.

This is the Hindu perspective, not the Buddhist perspective.

How is that very different in Buddhism? For Buddhists, Buddha is Bhagawan. I will just cite one passage from Lankavatara Sutra, which was suggested by Ablaze, to show the importance of reverence to the Buddhas.

As explained above, Bhagavān in the Buddhist framework has nothing to do with God or Brahman. Reverence for the Buddhas does not mean they are God or Brahman or have anything to do with God or Brahman. Let go of that projection.

From Lankaavatara Sutra

Further, Mahamati, there are two kinds of the sustaining power which issues from the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones; and sustained by this power [the Bodhisattvas] would prostrate themselves at their feet and ask them questions.​

:namaste Yet one thing is missing from all of this... Where is God mentioned in here? Where is Brahman mentioned in here? Where is a substratum mentioned in here?

No where.

The homage paid to the Buddha is not in a worshipful sense, as would be applied to God or Brahman in Hinduism. The homage paid to the Buddha is veneration in the sense of deep respect, reflecting the aspiration to emulate the Buddha. Again, this has nothing to do with God or Brahman, which are Hindu concepts rejected by the Buddha.

In summary. The fully enlightened ones are knowers of the uncreated, unformed, unborn that is the power of discernment in all of us. The fully enlightened ones are the Gurus and teachers who are called Bhagawan in both Hindu and Buddhist streams. Hindu stream also teaches that Guru is God. And as we have seen above, in Buddhist stream also, the fully enlightened ones are understood as the sustainers of the Bodhisattvas, who are enjoined to prostrate to the Arhats.

The fully enlightened ones know the uncreated, unformed, unborn that is Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is not the power of discernment in all of us. Nirvāṇa is the cessation of suffering.

There are some who mock the so-called syncretists. But the Veda says "the Truth is One, sages call it differently". The differences are in the upayas, the methods. But the reality is not many. And reverence to the non-dual reality and to those who are knowers of the non dual reality as their own wisdom, is not prohibited in any spiritual school.

(Rambled a lot).

Rest. Take a break. May you be free from all attachment and suffering.

:namaste

 

[Ablaze]

Question to apophenia or other Buddhists in this thread:

Hinduism seems to have a concept often referred to as "Avatars" which are basically human beings who are "God-Incarnate," i.e. human beings who have obtained enlightenment, full self-Realization, union with the Divine. Examples would be people like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, great hindu yogis, etc. My question is: what meaning or significance, if any, do such "Avatars" have from the perspective of a buddhist? What do they mean to a Buddhist? I feel like this is a question, if answered, that could better help me understand the Buddhist position on God.

In Buddhism, figures like these ("avatars," if that word is helpful for some) reflect the human potential for enlightened wisdom, enlightened concentration, and enlightened virtue. There is no concept of "God-Incarnate" in Buddhism. Instead, some of these beings may be regarded as bodhisattvas ( बोधिसत्त्व ) - enlightened beings who delay their own liberation (Nirvāṇa) in order to serve others on the path toward liberation (Nirvāṇa).

 

[Ablaze]

Ultimately, there is no Brahman, divine consciousness, Eternal Godhead, soul, etc. in Buddhism. In the Hindu framework, Brahman is a universal, formless essence, the unborn, uncreated, unconditioned, etc. In the Buddhist framework, theorizing a substratum of this nature has no value. Nirvāṇa, the cessation of suffering, is the practical parallel - if there even is one, given how there is really no room for Brahman as God in Buddhism.

Some people invested in other belief systems, operating under preconceived notions, attempt to compare Nirvāṇa (the extinction of suffering) or Śūnyatā (emptiness) to Brahman (God). However, Nirvāṇa is simply the cessation of suffering, and metaphysical speculation on the nature of God or Brahman is ultimately unhelpful in this regard, since it does not guarantee cessation of suffering and often leads to more harm than good due to the delusion it entertains, from the Buddhist perspective. Śūnyatā is the refutation of any essence, whether in form, formless, or otherwise. The Buddha's teachings on Śūnyatā deny the existence of any type of substratum to reality or existence.

Thus, from the Buddhist perspective, God/Brahman is not a useful concept.

 

[Ablaze]

Well, if you want to call it god, you will suffer mental anguish. (Zen Buddhists have taken the mental anguish and applied it in a most interesting manner. I can only speculate whether this mental anguish was born from trying to equate the Taoist void with the Buddhist sunyata. It would be interesting to see if the same sort of thing will happen again with other faiths/philosophies which attempt the same sort of thing.)

Excellent point. I've also wondered this.

Ultimately, Śūnyatā has no exact parallel in other religions. To call it the Dao or Brahman misses the point entirely, although they are often used as rough approximations. However, the Dao and Brahman take on panentheistic connotations, which Śūnyatā lacks. Śūnyatā is neither theistic, nor panentheistic, nor atheistic, nor...nor...nor. In my understanding, Śūnyatā is basically "neither, nor" ad-infinitum. This does not make it God or Brahman. It is neither God nor Brahman.

Śūnyatā negates it all, though not in a nihilistic sense.

 

[punkdbass]

In Buddhism, figures like these ("avatars," if that word is helpful for some) reflect the human potential for enlightened wisdom, enlightened concentration, and enlightened virtue. There is no concept of "God-Incarnate" in Buddhism. Instead, some of these beings may be regarded as bodhisattvas ( बोधिसत्त्व ) - enlightened beings who delay their own liberation (Nirvāṇa) in order to serve others on the path toward liberation (Nirvāṇa).

Interesting, your posts have been very helpful in this thread, thanks.

I would just like to add a quick note about the nature of this thread: I very much appreciate that you Buddhists here are helping to educate us on a pretty difficult and sensitive issue. I just hope we can all have respect and realize that it appears that one goes through many stages on their spiritual journey through life.. and often times several of those stages involve searching for the unconditional - God, or Brahman if you will. I think it's important to realize that we should not tell people, who are in these stages, that they are wrong or in error.. "what will be must be", and if the Buddhist concept of impermanence and goal of clinging to absolutely nothing is the ultimate goal - then that is something we must come to realize naturally, and without force.

Shalom.

 

[Ablaze]

Interesting, your posts have been very helpful in this thread, thanks.

I would just like to add a quick note about the nature of this thread: I very much appreciate that you Buddhists here are helping to educate us on a pretty difficult and sensitive issue. I just hope we can all have respect and realize that it appears that one goes through many stages on their spiritual journey through life.. and often times several of those stages involve searching for the unconditional - God, or Brahman if you will. I think it's important to realize that we should not tell people, who are in these stages, that they are wrong or in error.. "what will be must be", and if the Buddhist concept of impermanence and goal of clinging to absolutely nothing is the ultimate goal - then that is something we must come to realize naturally, and without force.

Shalom.

Thanks for your questions and contributions. They are always welcome and greatly appreciated.

Hopefully, it should be clear that we are not telling people who are in various stages that they are wrong or in error. All that is being articulated is the perspective of Buddha and of Buddhism as a spiritual path for the purpose of greater clarity in understanding Buddhism. This says nothing about other religions, just about how the concept is received in Buddhism. The original post, after all, was about the Buddhist perspective on God. Again, responses to that question are from the perspective of Buddhism. We are speaking from the perspective of Buddhists - not about other religions, but about Buddhism.

However, it is unfortunate when contributors from other religions attempt to tell Buddhists that they are wrong or in error, when actually, from the beginning, the thread is on a Buddhist topic. Since the question was asked about Buddhism, it is only appropriate that Buddhism remains the focus of discussion. Unfortunately, others have not respected that and have been trying to project other beliefs onto Buddhism, distorting the clarity of the thread and moving it away from the original question, which was originally posted in the Buddhism DIR, and thus called for a Buddhist perspective.

Your questions, on the other hand, have been extremely respectful, and that is truly refreshing and deeply appreciated.

Bowing to you with gratitude,
:namaste
Ablaze

 

[crossfire]

Stop making fun of Ratikala, bro. Or, I'll go Super Saiyan on ya'll!!!!

Could you please go Super Saiyan on this and explain that Buddhism Is Shramanic, not Vedic? Please destroy ignorance. Thank you.

namaskaram badran :namaste

this is a most interesting discussion and the inclusion of our hindu brothers is not inappropriate , in my opinion it is important to examine the understanding of many buddhist concepts against those held within hinduism , both of who's origins are in vedic brahminism .

therefore may I request that this thread be moved to 'dharmic religions DIR '

 

[Poeticus]

Could you please go Super Saiyan on this and explain that Buddhism Is Shramanic, not Vedic? Please destroy ignorance. Thank you.

Shramanic, Vedic, shapalic, yusuphalic, jobbalic, jainic, religiousic, forumic, all same thing if Ratikala says so.

So, you watch your tongue, miss attached one!

 

[crossfire]

Shramanic, Vedic, shapalic, yusuphalic, jobbalic, jainic, religiousic, forumic, all same thing if Ratikala says so.

So, you watch your tongue, miss attached one!

Watch your gwickle, O Super Saiyan, or I might snatch it!

:namaste

 

[Poeticus]

Watch your gwickle, O Super Saiyan, or I might snatch it!

:namaste

What's a Gwicklelāsura? (see what I did there?)

 

[crossfire]

What's a Gwicklelāsura? (see what I did there?)

LOL!

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...57516-your-attention-please-do-not-panic.html

 

[Poeticus]

lol!

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...57516-your-attention-please-do-not-panic.html

lmao!!! Badran stole that license from you! He's sooooo attached to that license!!!

 

[atanu]

Could you please go Super Saiyan on this and explain that Buddhism Is Shramanic, not Vedic? Please destroy ignorance. Thank you.

What is shramanic and what is vedic?

 

[atanu]

Excellent point. I've also wondered this.

Ultimately, Śūnyatā has no exact parallel in other religions.

Śūnyatā negates it all, though not in a nihilistic sense.

Have you heard of Neti Neti?

My only request is that just as you insist that non-buddhists may not comment on Buddhism, you may not also comment on aspects of other religions. Please.

There are Buddhists who have no hesitation to point out that the pinnacle is one only. It cannot be otherwise. For example, Nhat Hanh does not hesitate to compare his mindfullness with Kingdom of God that is found within.

 

[atanu]

Ultimately, there is no Brahman, divine consciousness, Eternal Godhead, soul, etc. in Buddhism. In the Hindu framework, Brahman is a universal, formless essence, the unborn, uncreated, unconditioned, etc. In the Buddhist framework, theorizing a substratum of this nature has no value. Nirvāṇa, the cessation of suffering, is the practical parallel - if there even is one, given how there is really no room for Brahman as God in Buddhism.

As pointed out earlier, Buddha has not negated Brahman. I am sure such scripture cannot be shown.

Further what is substantial difference between Brahman and the Unborn--etc. of Buddha?

How Sunyata is different from deep sleep wherein there is no desire and greed?

Some people invested in other belief systems, --

There is no some people apart from your mind. That is the ultimate teaching of Buddhism. Isn't it?

 

[crossfire]

There is no some people apart from your mind. That is the ultimate teaching of Buddhism. Isn't it?

Um, no.

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is the ending of suffering.