I really want to be Buddhist,but I can't let go of God.what are buddhist critiques of theism?

[un8-]

.

I need clear cut logical arguments or metaphysical proof.

The Buddha doesn't deny an existence of God, he holds a pascals wager position like he does towards many things he doesn't directly know, which is

"If God exists and is just and moral, then I haven't killed or stolen from anyone, so I would be agreeable to him"

You see this type of thinking in many suttas. The Buddha neither denies nor affirms things he doesn't know directly.

[Kusala]

.

I need clear cut logical arguments or metaphysical proof.

The Buddha doesn't deny an existence of God, he holds a pascals wager position like he does towards many things he doesn't directly know, which is

"If God exists and is just and moral, then I haven't killed or stolen from anyone, so I would be agreeable to him"

You see this type of thinking in many suttas. The Buddha neither denies nor affirms things he doesn't know directly.

There's a sutta where the Buddha compare his teaching to a handful of leaves...

[Sam Vara]

The Buddha doesn't deny an existence of God, he holds a pascals wager position like he does towards many things he doesn't directly know, which is

"If God exists and is just and moral, then I haven't killed or stolen from anyone, so I would be agreeable to him"

You see this type of thinking in many suttas.

Could you cite a few?

[Ontheway]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

[Bundokji]

Maybe try to see that a big part of your struggle is not with God per se, but with people believing in it. You are a part of a system where ideas of existence and non existence (which are linked to what is real and not real) are tools for justifying behavior, views, conduct identity and ways of living. Under this state of affairs, the need for an argument is the need for being accepted, or the need to be able to defend yourself (at least verbally) when being falsified. If you have a strong ability to argue and falsify them and their God, you can have them off your back, and their critique of your unique identity (which could be mainly driven by theological view of what is natural) would fall back on them.

[DiamondNgXZ]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Since Buddhists believe in heaven too, let's answer Dawkin's questions on heaven from the Buddhist perspective.

1. Dogs, pets, wild animals, they all can go to heaven, but it's a slim chance. Simile of the blind turtle and yoke.
2. Humans can go to heaven, even non homo sapiens. It's unclear by which point in the homo series does Buddhism not count them as humans, but in general it's more of the ability to experience suffering and happiness, to be able to do good, to be able to understand the Dhamma.
3. Jesus question, really irrelevant for us Buddhist, from beginningless time, people can be reborn in heaven.
4. The body in heaven is dependent on the good kammic store. Generally it's young, beautiful etc, only when devas are close to death is there signs of unpleasantness.

[un8-]

The Buddha doesn't deny an existence of God, he holds a pascals wager position like he does towards many things he doesn't directly know, which is

"If God exists and is just and moral, then I haven't killed or stolen from anyone, so I would be agreeable to him"

You see this type of thinking in many suttas.

Could you cite a few?

Here is one where he employs pascals wager regarding god

(1) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on what was done in the past, then obviously the Tathagata has done good things in the past, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation.

(2) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, then obviously the Tathagata has been created by an excellent supreme god, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation.

(3) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on sheer luck, then obviously the Tathagata has admirable luck, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation.

(4) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on birth, then obviously the Tathagata has had an admirable birth, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation.

(5) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on efforts in the here-&-now, then obviously the Tathagata has admirable efforts in the here-&-now, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation.

(6) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on what was done in the past, the Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise.

(7) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise.

(8) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on sheer luck, the Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise.

(9) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on birth, Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise.

(10) "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on efforts in the here-&-now, the Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise.

"Such is the teaching of the Tathagata. And, such being the teaching of the Tathagata, these ten legitimate deductions can be drawn that give grounds for praising him."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The Buddha uses this style of arguing with a few other topics as well

[Sam Vara]

...

Thanks!

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

As for more general refutations of Christianity and/or monotheism, the following is an incomplete list:

Gotama Buddha, in the Brahmajala Sutta, taught that the being at the beginning of the universe who thinks that he is the uncreated creator god is mistaken. Gotama Buddha, in the Brahmajala Sutta, taught that the universe undergoes cycles of arising and passing away with no uncreated creator god being invoked to explain such things.

The Buddhist Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE) in his Twelve Gates Treatise refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Vasubandhu (c. 4th century CE) in his Abhidharmakośakārikā, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Shantideva (c. 8th century CE), in his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra's ninth chapter, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ratnakīrti (11th century CE), in his Īśvara-sādhana-dūṣaṇa, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ju Mipham (19th century CE), in his uma gyen gyi namshé jamyang lama gyepé shyallung and Nor bu ke ta ka, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists and that creation can be from nothing.

The Buddhist Ouyi Zhixu (1599–1655), in his "Collected Refutations of Heterodoxy", refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists, specifically refuting Christianity.

The Buddhist Chödrak Gyatso, 7th Karmapa Lama (15th century CE), in his "Ocean of Literature on Logic" - the relevant portion of which has been published as "Establishing Validity" - refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The 19th and 20th century Bhikkhu Dhammaloka (who had been born in Ireland before going to Burma in order to ordain as a Buddhist monk), refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists in arguments against Christian missionaries that are collected in the book "The Irish Buddhist: The Forgotten Monk Who Faced Down the British Empire".

The Buddhist Bhikkhu Sujato, in 2015, wrote the essay, "Why we can be certain that God doesn’t exist" which can be read here: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/01/14 ... snt-exist/

I have myself created an argument against Christianity by citing (in addition to Christians' scriptures) the Brahmajala Sutta and the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, as you may read here: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion ... ans_bible/

I personally think that the argument from the problem of evil is a weak argument against an uncreated creator god, because such a being could just be very evil eirself. Better, I think, are arguments based upon the claim that an uncreated creator god is special pleading and often relies upon a "god of the gaps argument".

[Dan74]

I know a number of Christians and Jews who also call themselves Buddhists. Buddhism, one can argue, is more of a practice than a belief system. Many people approach it, as if shopping for a religion that would suit them best, like a pair of pants. That's not what it is about.

[dharmacorps]

Think about what Ajahn Fuang said to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's father (a Christian), when he asked him about God. He said something like "If there were a God who could eat and fill every beings' stomach with food when he did, I would bow down to that God. " not having seen anything like that, he set the notion aside.

But if you truly believe in God, OP, there is no reason you have to be a Buddhist. It is not an evangelical religion, so all others can do is provide information.

[Tutareture]

As for more general refutations of Christianity and/or monotheism, the following is an incomplete list:

Gotama Buddha, in the Brahmajala Sutta, taught that the being at the beginning of the universe who thinks that he is the uncreated creator god is mistaken. Gotama Buddha, in the Brahmajala Sutta, taught that the universe undergoes cycles of arising and passing away with no uncreated creator god being invoked to explain such things.

The Buddhist Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century CE) in his Twelve Gates Treatise refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Vasubandhu (c. 4th century CE) in his Abhidharmakośakārikā, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Shantideva (c. 8th century CE), in his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra's ninth chapter, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ratnakīrti (11th century CE), in his Īśvara-sādhana-dūṣaṇa, refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The Buddhist Ju Mipham (19th century CE), in his uma gyen gyi namshé jamyang lama gyepé shyallung and Nor bu ke ta ka, refuted the claims that an uncreated creator god exists and that creation can be from nothing.

The Buddhist Ouyi Zhixu (1599–1655), in his "Collected Refutations of Heterodoxy", refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists, specifically refuting Christianity.

The Buddhist Chödrak Gyatso, 7th Karmapa Lama (15th century CE), in his "Ocean of Literature on Logic" - the relevant portion of which has been published as "Establishing Validity" - refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists.

The 19th and 20th century Bhikkhu Dhammaloka (who had been born in Ireland before going to Burma in order to ordain as a Buddhist monk), refuted the claim that an uncreated creator god exists in arguments against Christian missionaries that are collected in the book "The Irish Buddhist: The Forgotten Monk Who Faced Down the British Empire".

The Buddhist Bhikkhu Sujato, in 2015, wrote the essay, "Why we can be certain that God doesn’t exist" which can be read here: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/01/14 ... snt-exist/

I have myself created an argument against Christianity by citing (in addition to Christians' scriptures) the Brahmajala Sutta and the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, as you may read here: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion ... ans_bible/

I personally think that the argument from the problem of evil is a weak argument against an uncreated creator god, because such a being could just be very evil eirself. Better, I think, are arguments based upon the claim that an uncreated creator god is special pleading and often relies upon a "god of the gaps argument".

Thanks,will look into it.

[un8-]

...

Thanks!

NP, the kalama sutta is another example where he employs a pascal wager style of arguing, but regarding rebirth instead of God

"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now

For example people (even monks on this forum) make the argument that all Arahants know that rebirth is true, but I don't think that's the case.I think only those that have attained the abhinna of divine eye and can see people being reborn know that rebirth is true, but this abhinna isn't a Supermundane abhinna, meaning it's not required, which is why not all Arahants have that ability. Therefore, one doesn't need to know that rebirth is true, all one needs to know is that their mind is free of the 3 poisons and that covers all bases, as the sutta I quoted demonstrates.

If rebirth or a supreme god happen to be true, your bases are covered either way, and that's what pascals wager aims to do, belief in God isn't actually necessary if you're a good person. Pascal argues that even if the probability of God existing is undefined or improbable there is nothing to lose and all to gain in acting as if he was likely to exist, which just means that one should be wholesome regardless if God or Rebirth is true.

The Buddha uses this same style of reasoning, and that's why Arahants don't actually need to know if rebirth is true, they only need to know that the 3 poisons are no longer subject to arising, and that's what Supermundane right view means

"When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.

5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The destruction of the 3 poisons, btw, is a Supermundane abhinna, it's required to become an Arahant, unlike the divine eye abhinna.

When Sariputta gets clubbed on the head by a ghost and Anurrudha asks him "did you know that you just got clubbed on the head by a ghost", Sariputta is like "huh, interesting" and is indifferent because all he needs to focus on is the 3 poisons and nothing else, and since he's Arahant then his job is finished, anything else doesn't really matter anymore.

[GreyHaven]

For example people (even monks on this forum) make the argument that all Arahants know that rebirth is true, but I don't think that's the case.I think only those that have attained the abhinna of divine eye and can see people being reborn know that rebirth is true, but this abhinna isn't a Supermundane abhinna, meaning it's not required, which is why not all Arahants have that ability. Therefore, one doesn't need to know that rebirth is true, all one needs to know is that their mind is free of the 3 poisons and that covers all bases, as the sutta I quoted demonstrates.

If rebirth or a supreme god happen to be true, your bases are covered either way, and that's what pascals wager aims to do, belief in God isn't actually necessary if you're a good person. Pascal argues that even if the probability of God existing is undefined or improbable there is nothing to lose and all to gain in acting as if he was likely to exist, which just means that one should be wholesome regardless if God or Rebirth is true.

The Buddha uses this same style of reasoning, and that's why Arahants don't actually need to know if rebirth is true, they only need to know that the 3 poisons are no longer subject to arising, and that's what Supermundane right view means

"When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.

5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The destruction of the 3 poisons, btw, is a Supermundane abhinna, it's required to become an Arahant, unlike the divine eye abhinna.

When Sariputta gets clubbed on the head by a ghost and Anurrudha asks him "did you know that you just got clubbed on the head by a ghost", Sariputta is like "huh, interesting" and is indifferent because all he needs to focus on is the 3 poisons and nothing else, and since he's Arahant then his job is finished, anything else doesn't really matter anymore.

This is a very good point, and dovetails nicely into something that few people really delve into topically, which is that arahants are not necessarily mutually identical, though they are mutually equivalent. For example, there are the distinctions based on experience with jhanic states. Per Bhikku Sujato's translation of MN70:

And what person is freed by wisdom?
It’s a person who does not have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, their defilements have come to an end.
This person is called freed by wisdom.

This is contrasted to:

And what person is freed both ways?
It’s a person who has direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending form. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements have come to an end.
This person is called freed both ways.

Abhinna are all mundane powers accessible through perfected samatha, with the exception of the singular supermundane power accessed through perfected insight - asavakkhaya, the actual stripping away of cankers. As a simple induction, it is inferred that those mostly focused on insight are taking a path that simply does not cross over into the territory of most abhinna, as those individuals do not ever develop the concentration necessary.

Knowing rebirth is true via the divine eye is both (1) not something all arahants are capable of doing, and (2) not on the list of requirements for achieving arahantship in the first place - even someone who is simply very good at concentrating could theoretically witness rebirth directly. If one recalls, some of the earliest chief disciples already possessed iddhi they had learned elsewhere.

More or less, direct confirmation of rebirth falls into the very broad and deep category of "things apparently possible to know, but not necessary to know". Development of mundane powers was discouraged, and public demonstrations of them actually forbidden, because the five mundane powers can be gained without any real progress towards the significant, supermundane one. I don't think it's necessarily a negative factor that we don't see these mental states popping up much anymore, if at all.

Ultimately, everything you need to know is on the path of insight. A lot of other things can be known, but you are getting into the weeds by looking for direct confirmation of them.

[cappuccino]

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

belief in the afterlife is right view


wrong view leads to the lower realms