• 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!

What do Buddhists think of the Vaishnavists accepting Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu?

iamfact

iamfact

Eclectic Pantheist
AmerikanZen said:
When the very first atheist became self-aware of human nature?..
Click to expand...

The Buddha wasn't atheist, in the strict sense of the word. He acknowledged the existence of devatās (deities) and is often portrayed by followers as teaching the gods and being superior to them. He was an implicit atheist with regards to a creator/supreme God in that he lacked belief in such an entity, however he was a nontheistic polytheist (bad word choice? :shrug:) with regards to lesser gods like the devas and devis. I think non-theist would be more appropriate than atheist. An atheist would disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of any gods, lesser or higher.
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
iamfact said:
The Buddha wasn't atheist, in the strict sense of the word. He acknowledged the existence of devatās (deities) and is often portrayed by followers as teaching the gods and being superior to them. He was an implicit atheist with regards to a creator/supreme God in that he lacked belief in such an entity, however he was a nontheistic polytheist (bad word choice? :shrug:) with regards to lesser gods like the devas and devis. I think non-theist would be more appropriate than atheist. An atheist would disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of any gods, lesser or higher.
Click to expand...
I think transtheist fits best, but in the end it's all wordplay.
 
AmerikanZen

AmerikanZen

Active Member
iamfact said:
The Buddha wasn't atheist, in the strict sense of the word. He acknowledged the existence of devatās (deities) and is often portrayed by followers as teaching the gods and being superior to them. He was an implicit atheist with regards to a creator/supreme God in that he lacked belief in such an entity, however he was a nontheistic polytheist (bad word choice? :shrug:) with regards to lesser gods like the devas and devis. I think non-theist would be more appropriate than atheist. An atheist would disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of any gods, lesser or higher.
Click to expand...

I think to become a Buddhist means you would have get past the psychological hurdle that "God" punishes you for right/wrong moral choices...
 
iamfact

iamfact

Eclectic Pantheist
Gjallarhorn said:
It's a pretty canonical aspect of Buddhism, along with the absolute denial of the existence of a Supreme Being or creator God.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by supreme being? Because depending upon the definition, certain tradtions of Buddhism do have scriptures talking about a "supreme being."
 
dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
In some forms of Buddhism, the Dharmakaya, in the form of Mahavairocana Buddha, is sometimes called the 'adi-buddha', and is the closest thing in Buddhism to the idea of a supreme creator god who controls the destinies of man per the Abrahamic religions. However, this view is held by those few and far between, as it's basically rejected by most forms of Buddhism. However, the idea of the Dharmakaya is present in all schools, but not as a supreme being, but as the totality and oneness of all things by their inherent Buddha-nature. Mahavairocana is normally only revered by those of the Vajrayana schools. Pure Land puts total faith in Amitabha, but not as a supreme creator god. So, even the talk in Buddhism of a "supreme being" still doesn't have the same connotations as it does in western religion.
 
ratikala

ratikala

Istha gosthi
to add to the buddhist veiw point on their being an absolute ?

there are many points which gautama buddha taught which are well documented and appear in many traditions too numerous to mention .

where by the buddha teaches that the buddha takes birth again for the benifit of mankind . the buddhavamsa describes the 27 previous births of the buddha in this kalpa alone , and explains that there have also been buddhas in previous kalpas .
it is often told that a young monk asked the buddha how many kalpas had passed , to which the buddha replied , that if one were to count the grains of sand in the great ganges river , from its begining to its end , even this number will be less than the number of kalpas which have passed .

if one imagines this one realises that buddha is saying that it is beyond our comprehension as this exceeds the life of our current universe .
and if the buddha appears numerous times in each kalpa and the kalpas are them selves enumerable , how can we perceive the origin or creation ? there fore the buddha simply does not concern himself with teaching on the origins

the jatakas list 544 previous incarnations of the buddha , still this is a drop in the ocean , and in many of the jataka stories one finds refference to the vedic gods which rather tends to suggest the origin of the buddha to be the same as the origin of many vedic incarnations .
with this in mind it is not inconceivable that the vaisnavas should list lord buddha as an incarnation of visnu .

for us to debate this issue on the strength of existing texts is an impossibility as the source of all being is beyond comprehension in this way as it is far too profound a subject you will know it only when you acheive enlightenment .

we could concider this issue fron two sides buddhism accknowledges the adi budha as the ultimate reality , whilst the hindu accknowledges para brahman to be the supreme cosmic spirit , is it not possible that this ultimate reality and supreme cosmic spirit are one and the same , the cause of all causes , the essence of all ?
 
iamfact

iamfact

Eclectic Pantheist
Gjallarhorn said:
Ishvara/Brahma

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2107114-post1.html
Click to expand...

When you say Brahma (I'm assuming you mean brahman and not Brahmā), are you referring to the Dvaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Bhedabheda Vedantic view of brahman, or the Vishishta-Dvaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Shubbha-Advaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Advaita Vedantic view of brahman?

The Nirvaṇa Sutra, one of the major sutras of Mahāyāna Buddhism which is influential upon Zen Buddhism among other forms of Buddhism, does have teachings of a true self (ātman) and of the eternal tathāgata (Buddha) which parallels the Advaita Vedantic view of brahman. Moreover, depending upon the way you look at the Upanishads, their teachings can seem extremely similar to other teachings of Mahayāna (Zen) Buddhism.

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"
 
dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
iamfact said:
When you say Brahma (I'm assuming you mean brahman and not Brahmā), are you referring to the Dvaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Bhedabheda Vedantic view of brahman, or the Vishishta-Dvaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Shubbha-Advaita Vedantic view of brahman, or the Advaita Vedantic view of brahman?

The Nirvaṇa Sutra, one of the major sutras of Mahāyāna Buddhism which is influential upon Zen Buddhism among other forms of Buddhism, does have teachings of a true self (ātman) and of the eternal tathāgata (Buddha) which parallels the Advaita Vedantic view of brahman. Moreover, depending upon the way you look at the Upanishads, their teachings can seem extremely similar to other teachings of Mahayāna (Zen) Buddhism.

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"
Click to expand...

I would like to point out, that while the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does speak of a "true self", this self is not an independent, ego-soul, as is generally believed by most western, and some eastern, religions. This self is the tathagatagarbha, which is tied inextricably to dependent origination, in other words, it's like each person is one drop in a vast ocean, there is no independent, eternally existing true self, it's simply the Buddha-nature that is in all things. From my understanding, even in Advaita, the atman and brahman, while united, are only so in a semi-dualistic way, while the Buddha-nature is non-dual. In other words, while the atman and brahman is the same, there is still a difference, with the atman being an independent ego-self, which the Buddha would categorically deny. Of course, I could be wrong in my view of this topic according to Advaita, and if I am, I hope someone could correct me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top