Do Buddhist believe in god?

[tiltbillings]

personally I believe this misrepresents Theravada as there are gods found in the texts, how Buddhism Vissions Gods may not be in the same light, but that doesn't mean that they aren't included.
I will do a more detailed responce at a later point but just thought I would throw it out there for everyone to mull over.

Not much to mull over. The gods found in the suttas are kamma bound beings, which is considerably different from a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, which the Buddha rejected.

hey Tiltbilling

the Buddha is the teacher of gods and all living beings(which is what the suttas state)

so buddhist do beileive in gods,now you say these gods are different than the = singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos[/i], which the Buddha rejected.
YES BUT these qualities dont fit the gods in buddhism THEY FIT THE BUDDHA.minus the omnipotent.

Their is a reason why the Buddha was called Bhagavan at the begining of ever sutta.

So, where is the Buddha? And he is the cause of the cosmos?

[sunyavadin]

The Buddha was never concerned with the literal 'origin of the cosmos'. Questions about whether or when the universe began were always put to one side. But in the Biblical religions, the creation story was tied into the rest of the tradition. I think that is why it has become such a divisive issue in Western culture (or between religious literalists and scientific materialists.)

But Buddhism was always concerned with 'the cause of dukkha and the ending of dukkha'. This is something that happens within the human being. That is one of the reasons (in my opinion) that Buddhism is not particularly concerned by whatever accounts of the actual physical origins of things that scientists come up with. They don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak.

[tiltbillings]

The Buddha was never concerned with the literal 'origin of the cosmos'. Questions about whether or when the universe began were always put to one side.

That is not quite so. The religious questions of the origins of the universe are set aside because they are grounded in a faulty premise.

[sunyavadin]

OK! I'll concede the point.

[kirk5a]

So then you are saying that nibbana is the mind/body process.

I did not say that, but keep in mind: Who sees paticcasamuppada sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees paticcasamuppda. - MN 1 190-1.

It looks to me like you are saying there is no aspect of reality which does not arise and pass away.

So are you supposing that the "ease[bliss]" referred to there is a mind/body process?

The word here is sukha, ease, bliss. An interesting question: where/how is sukha experienced for the arahants?

Ven. Sariputta answered that, he said it was nibbana, where nothing is felt.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.

The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#iti-028

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord —
That is not fit to take delight in.

The escape from that, the peaceful,
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#iti-043

[Cittasanto]

Your statements:

Most people here, I believe, are not from a Buddhist Background, i.e.born Buddhists, so their cultural background belief in god/s have been dropped allong the way but rather than accept there are other views on divinity with their own nuances when talking about it everything is clumped together and denied based upon one conception which they happen to of inherited

Lack of nuance and clumping and denying. Not what I am doing. Not part of my understanding of theism and the Buddha's teachings

whereas Buddhism which is not, in most cases, part of the cultural backdrop for inheritance, is picked up then forced (to some degree) to fall in line with the previous denial of the inherited system.

I suppose it can happen, but that is not what I have done.

firstly note that I do not separate them as you have, as they are on the same thing.
what understanding of theism or Buddhism do you see me as expounding here, as I do not believe I am making any point on theism or Buddhism there specifically; rather responding to someones post with certain things which added to what they said through the context of this thread.

So, following your logic, I raise a point, and you won't discuss it because it is not a point that you raised. That makes for next to no discussion.
what did you do here viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13029&start=20#p195773 and please look at the post you are responding to here viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13029&start=20#p195769.
If I have something to discuss on something I would, if there is no point in discussing something because I haven't made certain assumptions then I won't. same as I wouldn't argue 1+1=3,.
There was never the assumption that some gods are excempt from the Buddhas redefinition of what they were in reality, but this doesn't stop them being gods.

Not at all, but if a god is not a first cause, then what function might it have?

what function do any beings have?
There are in buddhis cosmology bods of varying degrees of control over things (such as the creation of others)
there are a wide variety of functions they may or may not have, does not mean this is relevant.

The "gods" -- devas (and do we really need call them gods?) -- may have control of some things, but they are at best extremely limited in contrast to what really is a captial "G" God: "That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." At the very most one could say of the suttas that there is a very limited, a highly circumscribed theism going on, which has no significance in terms of liberation, which is to say that one needs not talk about the devas at all other than being part of the mythic cosmology which the Buddha reworked to illustrate his point of view in contrast to the essentialist/absolutist notions of the Brahmins AND the suttas show a rejection of the capital "G" God. As I said, there was/is a reason why the Brahmins/Hindus considered/consider the Buddha and his teachings atheistic.

well we could use the derived english word daemon? which is etimalogically related I believe via the latin. but god is easily recognizable.
I am by no means rejecting the suttas through suggesting Buddhism is theistic, and what you have described (underlined) is something like I am suggesting.
Do remember I have stated here the broadest meaning, and have done so a few times since.
but to say that Buddhism is Atheistic I find misleading to a degree of deluding people, because of the words used in the canon do not described them in a metaphorical sense.

[tiltbillings]

So then you are saying that nibbana is the mind/body process.

I did not say that, but keep in mind: Who sees paticcasamuppada sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees paticcasamuppda. - MN 1 190-1.

It looks to me like you are saying there is no aspect of reality which does not arise and pass away.

Is that what Who sees paticcasamuppada sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees paticcasamuppda is saying?

So are you supposing that the "ease[bliss]" referred to there is a mind/body process?

The word here is sukha, ease, bliss. An interesting question: where/how is sukha experienced for the arahants?

Ven. Sariputta answered that, he said it was nibbana, where nothing is felt.

Nothing is felt, except that nibbana is pleasant. The text you reference is certainly referring to jhana practice in the context of being an arahant. But the question is, for you, does the arahant walk around, living her life always in nirodha-samāpatti? And what about the arahants who do not have that mastery of all the jhanas? For arahants being free of greed, hatred, and delusion is not sukha as they live their daily lives, eating, talking, scratcthing an itch? It seems you might be seriously misreading the text you referenced.


    

That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
     And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
     The seat of disease, brittle,
     Caused and craving food,
     That is not fit to find pleasure in.

     Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable,
     Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow,
     Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped,
     The conditioning [of greed, hatred and delusion] appeased,
     This is ease [bliss]. -- Iti 37-8

You have a problem with this?

[tiltbillings]

. . .
what understanding of theism or Buddhism do you see me as expounding here, as I do not believe I am making any point on theism or Buddhism there specifically; rather responding to someones post with certain things which added to what they said through the context of this thread.

The point you are making here is that you seem to think that some people act in a certain way as a result conflating and misunderstanding things related to theism and the Buddha's teachings. I am simply pointing out that for me, and I am sure others, that I do not fall into the pit of misunderstanding you are bemoaning.

well we could use the derived english word daemon? which is etimalogically related I believe via the latin. but god is easily recognizable.

And "god" is just as, if not considerably moreso, problematic as you claim the word "atheism" is.

but to say that Buddhism is Atheistic I find misleading to a degree of deluding people, because of the words used in the canon do not described them in a metaphorical sense.

You may find it that way, but calling the Buddha's teaching atheistic would be less problematic than calling it theistic. Either way, which is the point, one would have to offer some degree of explanation as to how the terms are used. Given that atheism is a word directed at -- and most commonly understood in terms of -- the idea of a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, which is something the Buddha had a few things to say, atheism as a descriptive term, but not without qualifications, is appropriate.

[Cittasanto]

. . .
what understanding of theism or Buddhism do you see me as expounding here, as I do not believe I am making any point on theism or Buddhism there specifically; rather responding to someones post with certain things which added to what they said through the context of this thread.

The point you are making here is that you seem to think that some people act in a certain way as a result conflating and misunderstanding things related to theism and the Buddha's teachings. I am simply pointing out that for me, and I am sure others, that I do not fall into the pit of misunderstanding you are bemoaning.

I am hardly bemoaning.

well we could use the derived english word daemon? which is etimalogically related I believe via the latin. but god is easily recognizable.

And "god" is just as, if not considerably moreso, problematic as you claim the word "atheism" is.
I see a fun experiment.
explain why gods are in the canon from an atheist perspective.
and as is only fair I shall do so from a theistic perspective.
here is mine, please feel free to challange it from an Atheistic perspective and I shall do the same for your offering.

Code: Select all

There are gods in Buddhism, however they are seen in a particular light, not as a immortal monotheistic God, as in Buddhism there is cause and effect and no first cause can be discerned and pondering this is a distraction to the actual practice, rather as a type of being in the rounds of rebirth, who enjoy certain pleasures, and when they die they can be reborn in any of the other realms based upon their intentional actions. however belief in gods, the after life is not fully neccesary as one may or may not see the validity or reality of this in regard to practice as one develops a firm footing.

but to say that Buddhism is Atheistic I find misleading to a degree of deluding people, because of the words used in the canon do not described them in a metaphorical sense.

You may find it that way, but calling the Buddha's teaching atheistic would be less problematic than calling it theistic. Either way, which is the point, one would have to offer some degree of explanation as to how the terms are used. Given that atheism is a word directed at -- and most commonly understood in terms of -- the idea of a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, which is something the Buddha had a few things to say, atheism as a descriptive term, but not without qualifications, is appropriate.[/quote]
same could be said with the use of theism or the use of neither.
although I know a few atheists and they would certainly not accept any god, and understand the term to include all, not just one explanation, and are just as likely to doubt the pali canon and its use as they are to doubt the Hindu, Zoroastrian, Islamic, Christian, Wicca, and any other form. the sheer notion of a god, be it a creator or otherwise, is abhorrent to them.

[tiltbillings]

well we could use the derived english word daemon? which is etimalogically related I believe via the latin. but god is easily recognizable.

And "god" is just as, if not considerably moreso, problematic as you claim the word "atheism" is.
I see a fun experiment.
explain why gods are in the canon from an atheist perspective.

Sure: There are what might be called gods in Buddhism; however, they are seen in a particular light, not as a monotheistic God, a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos. In Buddhism there is cause and effect, and the idea of a first cause is rejected in terms of interdependent causality. The so-called gods within Buddhism are a reworking of the immortal gods of Brahmanism, putting them into a context of causality and the round birth, death, and rebirth dependent upon their volitional actions. Belief in these gods and the after life is not fully necessary in regard to one's day-to-day practice. The bottom line is that the gods were part of the Brahmanical pantheon, which have been put into a Buddhist context making them mortal beings, having no significant role to play in one's striving towards liberation, and the claim of one of these gods to be the sole creator of the universe has been put into this Buddhist context and portrayed as being a deluded claim.

although I know a few atheists and they would certainly not accept any god, and understand the term to include all, not just one explanation, and are just as likely to doubt the pali canon and its use as they are to doubt the Hindu, Zoroastrian, Islamic, Christian, Wicca, and any other form. the sheer notion of a god, be it a creator or otherwise, is abhorrent to them.

And we are to generalize from a couple of people you know as how we should understand atheism?

[Cittasanto]

There are what might be called gods in Buddhism; however, they are seen in a particular light, not as a monotheistic God, a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos. In Buddhism there is cause and effect, and the idea of a first cause is rejected in terms of interdependent causality. The so-called gods within Buddhism are a reworking of the immortal gods of Brahmanism, putting them into a context of causality and the round birth, death, and rebirth dependent upon their volitional actions. Belief in these gods and the after life is not fully necessary in regard to one's day-to-day practice. The bottom line is that the gods were part of the Brahmanical pantheon, which have been put into a Buddhist context making them mortal beings, having no significant role to play in one's striving towards liberation, and the claim of one of these gods to be the sole creator of the universe has been put into this Buddhist context and portrayed as being a deluded claim.
and what do you mean by "so-called gods"?
They are either considered gods or not, if they are not gods why call them gods at all?

although I know a few atheists and they would certainly not accept any god, and understand the term to include all, not just one explanation, and are just as likely to doubt the pali canon and its use as they are to doubt the Hindu, Zoroastrian, Islamic, Christian, Wicca, and any other form. the sheer notion of a god, be it a creator or otherwise, is abhorrent to them.

And we are to generalize from a couple of people you know as how we should understand atheism?

No, but when they agree with the definition it lends support, but saying that Righard Dawkins has also voiced the same, the problem is the world view they are generally pitted against is the Abrahamic conception.

[tiltbillings]

There are what might be called gods in Buddhism; however, they are seen in a particular light, not as a monotheistic God, a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos. In Buddhism there is cause and effect, and the idea of a first cause is rejected in terms of interdependent causality. The so-called gods within Buddhism are a reworking of the immortal gods of Brahmanism, putting them into a context of causality and the round birth, death, and rebirth dependent upon their volitional actions. Belief in these gods and the after life is not fully necessary in regard to one's day-to-day practice. The bottom line is that the gods were part of the Brahmanical pantheon, which have been put into a Buddhist context making them mortal beings, having no significant role to play in one's striving towards liberation, and the claim of one of these gods to be the sole creator of the universe has been put into this Buddhist context and portrayed as being a deluded claim.
and what do you mean by "so-called gods"?

They are either considered gods or not, if they are not gods why call them gods at all?

Just to draw the distinction between the idea that the gods are immortal and the Buddhist so-called gods are not.

although I know a few atheists and they would certainly not accept any god, and understand the term to include all, not just one explanation, and are just as likely to doubt the pali canon and its use as they are to doubt the Hindu, Zoroastrian, Islamic, Christian, Wicca, and any other form. the sheer notion of a god, be it a creator or otherwise, is abhorrent to them.

And we are to generalize from a couple of people you know as how we should understand atheism?

No, but when they agree with the definition it lends support, but saying that Righard Dawkins has also voiced the same, the problem is the world view they are generally pitted against is the Abrahamic conception.

A defintion, but obviously not a Buddhist definition.

[Cittasanto]

There are what might be called gods in Buddhism; however, they are seen in a particular light, not as a monotheistic God, a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos. In Buddhism there is cause and effect, and the idea of a first cause is rejected in terms of interdependent causality. The so-called gods within Buddhism are a reworking of the immortal gods of Brahmanism, putting them into a context of causality and the round birth, death, and rebirth dependent upon their volitional actions. Belief in these gods and the after life is not fully necessary in regard to one's day-to-day practice. The bottom line is that the gods were part of the Brahmanical pantheon, which have been put into a Buddhist context making them mortal beings, having no significant role to play in one's striving towards liberation, and the claim of one of these gods to be the sole creator of the universe has been put into this Buddhist context and portrayed as being a deluded claim.
and what do you mean by "so-called gods"?

They are either considered gods or not, if they are not gods why call them gods at all?

Just to draw the distinction between the idea that the gods are immortal and the Buddhist so-called gods are not.

wasn' saying it once enough without creating ambiguity?

And we are to generalize from a couple of people you know as how we should understand atheism?

No, but when they agree with the definition it lends support, but saying that Righard Dawkins has also voiced the same, the problem is the world view they are generally pitted against is the Abrahamic conception.

A defintion, but obviously not a Buddhist definition.

The Buddha never defined Atheism to my knowledge, although it has been defined through convention.
Although i should note Atheism is also a group, just like Buddhism is, and just as Buddhists wouldn't accept their "name" being redefined, I would imagine Atheists would also have some objection.

[tiltbillings]

wasn' saying it once enough without creating ambiguity?

No ambiguity.

The Buddha never defined Atheism to my knowledge, although it has been defined through convention.

One can easily draw from the Buddha's teachings basic principles that would give us a Buddhist understanding of atheism.

Although i should note Atheism is also a group, just like Buddhism is, and just as Buddhists wouldn't accept their "name" being redefined, I would imagine Atheists would also have some objection.

Good heavens. Seriously, now. Atheism is not a unified, monolithic group with a singular definition of what atheism means any more than vegetarians are a unified monolithic group with a singular definition of vegetarianism. Just like there are differing understanding and definitions of vegetarianism, so there are for atheists, and it is not unreasonable to talk about Buddhist atheism just as we can talk about lacto-ovo vegetarian in contrast to vegetarians who do not eat eggs, but will drink milk.

[tiltbillings]

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh162.pdf See the essay: "The Buddhist Attitude to God"

[Cittasanto]

wasn' saying it once enough without creating ambiguity?

No ambiguity.

well it did raise the question if they were gods or not, so yes there was ambiguity!

The Buddha never defined Atheism to my knowledge, although it has been defined through convention.

One can easily draw from the Buddha's teachings basic principles that would give us a Buddhist understanding of atheism.

Although i should note Atheism is also a group, just like Buddhism is, and just as Buddhists wouldn't accept their "name" being redefined, I would imagine Atheists would also have some objection.

Good heavens. Seriously, now. Atheism is not a unified, monolithic group with a singular definition of what atheism means any more than vegetarians are a unified monolithic group with a singular definition of vegetarianism. Just like there are differing understanding and definitions of vegetarianism, so there are for atheists, and it is not unreasonable to talk about Buddhist atheism just as we can talk about lacto-ovo vegetarian in contrast to vegetarians who do not eat eggs, but will drink milk.

well contrast it to buddhists, Vajrayana, Mahayana, Theravada, ask each what Buddhanature is or skillful means, or the most important aspect or practice of Buddhism is and you would get a variety of answers, not all will be compatable with other schools, or better yet the usefulness of gods, talk to a theravadin you get one answer, talk to a Vajrayanan and you get an internal war about the right one to praise.
or chan/zen and the fifth precept...
yet there is a core set of beliefs which are not exclusive to one group, or individual.
hence Atheists can call themselves atheists and what their main common belief is is instantly recognizable, organized in a monolithic way or not, and that is a lack of belief in god or gods. although I have heard of several atheistic societies. atheists.org has been going since the early 1960 btw who state this in their about regarding what you want to do

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

[sunyavadin]

I agree with the above.

See the essay: "The Buddhist Attitude to God"

That essay disputes God on the basis of the definition that he is 'maker and preserver of all things visible'. But the same arguments can be used by materialists against Dhamma, 'that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe'. If you ask any scientific materialist whether there was, or could be, any 'evidence' for 'dhamma', what would their answer be? It would be very similar to the arguments presented here against the idea of God.

There are very powerful forces in the world that are opposed to the idea of anything holy, spiritual or religious. In light of this, I don't think it is prudent for Buddhism to place itself in the ranks of the atheists. You can say this, and still resolutely oppose the evils of organized religion, and the shortcomings of institutional Christianity. As I do.

[tiltbillings]

wasn' saying it once enough without creating ambiguity?

No ambiguity.

well it did raise the question if they were gods or not, so yes there was ambiguity!

For you. For me it was a matter of emphasis.

Atheists will define themselves.

And there is, of course, a fair amount of variation in that, including Buddhist atheists.

[tiltbillings]

Dhamma, 'that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe'.

Interesting wording. Where is this "definition" from?

[Judai]

Hey tiltbilling
You asked where is the Buddha,and did he crwate the cosmos.

My reply:if you are implying nhilism,and anhilation of the existing being then,all i can say is the Buddha taught thoae things were wrong view,the Buddha never taught that life ceases not once not ever.The Buddha stated that after death their is always the continuation of an existing being,whether its eternal life in rebirth,or eternal life as the Buddha life itself is eternal.their is no nhilism,or anhilationism doctrine in Buddhism its simply listed as wrong view.

With that said the Buddha is eternal,everlating,unborn,and uncreatedand as he stated the teacher of immortality so where do you think he is?

As far as the cosmos is voncerned the cosmos is samsarasan its not of the Buddha its of mara,and have u ever heard of emanationIsm?more in line with karma than creatiSm.

Lastly the TOS is do Buddhists belive in god the answer is YES
You mono and poly ideas of god or gods either way they are still gods whether its the god odin or the god of the bible or the gods in buddhism.
And an atheist doesnt belive that a god exists PERIOD,whether is mono or poly idea of god or gods,
An agnostic is one one states a god Might exist.

So no we are not atheists,also gods in are literal not metophoric if you want ill let the suttas tell you that for me?