Monotheism

[Bob Dixon]

Is Buddhism compatible with Monotheism/Monism/Deism/Pantheism?
Typically, Buddhism seems atheistic, or perhaps polytheistic, but I see no schools that teach a concept of "one God", whatever this "one God" may be. Even the Hindu concept of Brahman seems un-Buddhist.

What do you guys think?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Buddhism denies the existence of a Creator. Other gods could potentially exist, but they can't save you, and therefore are ignored.

 

[The Rev]

I think that any time you accept the idea of something existing for which there is no evidence, you open the door for delusion; you reinforce a habit of denial of reality, or acceptance of fantasy as reality. Both are ignorance, and decidedly unskillful, in the Buddhist tradition.
:namaste

 

[Bob Dixon]

I think that any time you accept the idea of something existing for which there is no evidence, you open the door for delusion; you reinforce a habit of denial of reality, or acceptance of fantasy as reality. Both are ignorance, and decidedly unskillful, in the Buddhist tradition.
:namaste

So a Buddhist shouldn't believe in reincarnation, Nirvana, any of the Buddhas before Gautama (for whom there's no historical evidence), or any other such things, then.

 

[The Rev]

I would not speak for other Buddhists. Each person must make up his/her own mind about what to believe. For myself, I don't accept the existence of any of those things as facts. I acknowledge, for example, the idea of Nirvana, and I seek to understand what it is through my own experience, but the possibility that it is nothing at all is also on the table.
:namaste

 

[koan]

Buddhism doesn't ask one to believe anything. What Buddhism proposes, is that one discovers things (dharma) for themselves. Buddhism also does not insist on Faith. What is needed though, Is the faith in oneself to breakthrough mundane logic and knowledge and discover truth for themselves. What Buddhism does do, is give one the tools (Dharma) for this self examination. It's up to the individual put these tools to work. Otherwise, what one is doing, is reading a car manual without being a mechanic and discussing why the car is built this way.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Buddhism doesn't ask one to believe anything. What Buddhism proposes, is that one discovers things (dharma) for themselves. Buddhism also does not insist on Faith. What is needed though, Is the faith in oneself to breakthrough mundane logic and knowledge and discover truth for themselves. What Buddhism does do, is give one the tools (Dharma) for this self examination. It's up to the individual put these tools to work. Otherwise, what one is doing, is reading a car manual without being a mechanic and discussing why the car is built this way.

How about Pureland Buddhism? Faith is one of the greatest tenets of Pureland Buddhism, and is dependent on Other Power (parabala, or tariki) over Self-Power (svabala, or jiriki). Without faith in Amitabha Buddha and His vow, one can not come to be entrusted and embraced by Amitabha Buddha, and reach Pureland.

 

[koan]

Faith in Pure Land, or to be exact, Amitabha Buddha, is a two edged sword. The problem arises with the meaning of faith. A Pure Land Monk/Nun, will tell you, that faith in Amitabha will reward you with being reborn in the Western Pureland. However, They will also tell you, that this faith only really works when one continuously chants the Buddhas' name and so blocks out other thought. An enlightened Pureland Monk/Nun, will also tell you, that the pure land is really the pure mind.
I personally don't like Pureland Buddhism, for the very reason, that in the lower echelons of practice, this faith in Amitabha is akin to belief in Jesus Christ as the saviour .

 

[Me Myself]

So a Buddhist shouldn't believe in reincarnation, Nirvana, any of the Buddhas before Gautama (for whom there's no historical evidence), or any other such things, then.

A buddhist is expected to not belief antyhing "just because" : religion, wise person, father, friend, lover, or even the Buddha , tell you to believe it.

Gautma Siddharta Buddha said that everything he tells you must first see if it agrees with your better judgement, your experience and if after practiced you got the desired effects. If it agrees with your better judgement and your experience and gave you good fruit, only then you can accept it as truth. Never should anything be accepted as truth before it.

So yes, I would say a "good" buddhistt wouldn´t beleive in reincarnation, nirvana, etc, until he himself/herself finds it reasonable to his judgement AND has experienced some of it to say it is real.

A lot of people remember past lifes after meditation (to most it takes a lot of meditation) so before remembering it themselves, according to buddha, they have no reaso to beleive it.

In any case this is more or less the way I see it. A buddhist can be a monotheist in my way of seeing, if his edxperience points him to it.

It is actuall kinda hard, bec ause Buddha never talked of "buddhism" he talked about a method for getting rid of duhka(suffering). In these method, or even, methods, you take that which has helped you and leave that which has not helped you.

Buddha himself got enlightened that way. (according to the teachings at least )

 

[Me Myself]

How about Pureland Buddhism? Faith is one of the greatest tenets of Pureland Buddhism, and is dependent on Other Power (parabala, or tariki) over Self-Power (svabala, or jiriki). Without faith in Amitabha Buddha and His vow, one can not come to be entrusted and embraced by Amitabha Buddha, and reach Pureland.

Anyone may correct me if I am wrong in anything but:

Even with faith in Amidaba buddha, he is not going to do ALL the work from you.

Yes, he´ll help you, and you´ll reach his pureland, but even the pureland is not the goal but a way in which you obtain the goal (which is enlightement)

The coolness about pureland it is that it is supposedly incredibly easy to focus on meditation there.

In any case, it IS NOT necesary to have faith in amidaba Buddha to obtain nirvana. This is not a teaching of pureland. The teaching of pure land is that it is EASIER.

Again, anyone that knows better may correct/instruct me at will

 

[Bob Dixon]

A buddhist is expected to not belief antyhing "just because" : religion, wise person, father, friend, lover, or even the Buddha , tell you to believe it.

Gautma Siddharta Buddha said that everything he tells you must first see if it agrees with your better judgement, your experience and if after practiced you got the desired effects. If it agrees with your better judgement and your experience and gave you good fruit, only then you can accept it as truth. Never should anything be accepted as truth before it.

So yes, I would say a "good" buddhistt wouldn´t beleive in reincarnation, nirvana, etc, until he himself/herself finds it reasonable to his judgement AND has experienced some of it to say it is real.

A lot of people remember past lifes after meditation (to most it takes a lot of meditation) so before remembering it themselves, according to buddha, they have no reaso to beleive it.

In any case this is more or less the way I see it. A buddhist can be a monotheist in my way of seeing, if his edxperience points him to it.

It is actuall kinda hard, bec ause Buddha never talked of "buddhism" he talked about a method for getting rid of duhka(suffering). In these method, or even, methods, you take that which has helped you and leave that which has not helped you.

Buddha himself got enlightened that way. (according to the teachings at least )

Well, this does make sense.
Buddhism encompasses a wide range of beliefs, though. It goes from the uber-materialistic to the really metaphysical. From pure atheism to straight-up polytheism.
Perhaps if a Tibetan Buddhist came along (or someone of that sort), we'd get an even wider range of answers!

 

[Gaura Priya]

Faith in Pure Land, or to be exact, Amitabha Buddha, is a two edged sword. The problem arises with the meaning of faith. A Pure Land Monk/Nun, will tell you, that faith in Amitabha will reward you with being reborn in the Western Pureland. However, They will also tell you, that this faith only really works when one continuously chants the Buddhas' name and so blocks out other thought. An enlightened Pureland Monk/Nun, will also tell you, that the pure land is really the pure mind.
I personally don't like Pureland Buddhism, for the very reason, that in the lower echelons of practice, this faith in Amitabha is akin to belief in Jesus Christ as the saviour .

I am presently reading Honen's translation of some letters, and I can tell you for a surety that only modernists will make an interpretation that it is all in the mind.

One has to understand that Amitabha's Vow saves every living being, and that one who dedicates emself completely to Buddhanama will be enveloped in Amitabha's light, surrounded by His associates. Having any doubt in the power of Amitabha (parabala) and trying to practice on one's own merit (svabala) can not bring one to Pure Land.

Honen says that there is absolutely no difference between a monastic and a layperson in terms of eir knowledge. Faith alone is the determining factor in being assured of one's birth in the Pure Land.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Anyone may correct me if I am wrong in anything but:

Even with faith in Amidaba buddha, he is not going to do ALL the work from you.

Yes, he´ll help you, and you´ll reach his pureland, but even the pureland is not the goal but a way in which you obtain the goal (which is enlightement)

The coolness about pureland it is that it is supposedly incredibly easy to focus on meditation there.

In any case, it IS NOT necesary to have faith in amidaba Buddha to obtain nirvana. This is not a teaching of pureland. The teaching of pure land is that it is EASIER.

Again, anyone that knows better may correct/instruct me at will

"You may by chance have a fleeting moment of doubt, but whatever anyone says, do not falter in your nembutsu spirit. One thousand buddhas may appear on earth and tell you that birth in the Pure Land is impossible through nembutsu. Believing that nembutsu is the teaching of Shakyamuni and Amida Buddha, attested to by buddhas as countless as the grains of the sand of the Ganges, renew your unshakable faith, be adamant, and aspire to find yourself in the presence of Amida Buddha."

-- Honen


Faith is the whole cause of Pure Land; the whole idea of Pure Land Buddhism is that one must focus all one's efforts on Amitabha Buddha, and He will carry one to the Pure Land through complete and utter entrusting to His power (parabala [Sanskrit], tariki [Japanese]) as opposed to one's own effort (svabala, jiriki). Since we are all unworthy (bombu, Japanese, 'fool') in this Dharma-degenerate age, Shakyamuni Buddha gave His teaching of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land for us.

Having total, complete faith in His vow, without swerving doubt, that reciting Buddhanama, nembutsu, nian-fo, with complete trust that one will without a doubt be born in Pure Land and embraced by Amitabha Himself with all other boddhisattvas and buddhas, is the goal of the Pure Land practitioner. If one has no faith in this process, in Amitabha Buddha, or His name, then how can one be a dedicant?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I believe and subscribe to a one true God concept/ideology (Would God take on the forms of many Names? Like El Shaddai,Creator,Jehovah,Jesus Christ)

Would be practicing Orthodox Christian prayers Hopefully you'll pray for me.

 

[no-body]

I've always seen it as pure semantics, though a lot of Buddhists would probably disagree.

 

[alishan]

what do you think about this

God in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and is there other opinion about god like this master 's opinion?
The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality:[40]

At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ...
​

 

[wmjbyatt]

Is Buddhism compatible with Monotheism/Monism/Deism/Pantheism?
Typically, Buddhism seems atheistic, or perhaps polytheistic, but I see no schools that teach a concept of "one God", whatever this "one God" may be. Even the Hindu concept of Brahman seems un-Buddhist.

What do you guys think?

There are schools of Buddhism which directly reject the notion of any kind of God, and the Sutras have Shakyamuni himself denying the existence of a Creator God. I know of no school that actually teaches the existence of a Creator God, however, I know basically nothing about Vajrayana and its bajillion subtraditions.

That all having been said, I think one can pretty easily interpret a liberal form of Buddhism--especially Zen--to be compatible with a liberal form of Christianity, deism, or some kind of a monotheistic paganism. I know that there are Christians who also practice Zen, and many of them consider Jesus Christ to be the Savior and Path to peace and an eternal afterlife, with Zen to be the Path to a peaceful THIS life.

 

[Breathe]

I've always seen it as pure semantics, though a lot of Buddhists would probably disagree.

Would you please be willing to elaborate upon this?
You can PM me if you feel more comfortable there.