Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Yoder777]

We can't. The truth is we know far too little about the historical Buddha, less than we do about Christ or Confucius, far less than we do about Muhammad. Fortunately tying Buddhism back to the historical Buddha is far less important than it is for either Christ or Muhammad where the kergyma (message) is far intimately tied to the historicity of the events it is based upon. The various forms Buddhism can be judged solely on the basis of the content of their doctrines.

If the goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, the historicity of Buddha's life story is important, because how can we otherwise know that what Buddhism teaches about enlightenment is even possible? Furthermore, Pure Land Buddhism and any other form of devotion to the Buddha is based on the Buddha being an actual historical person to whom one can be devoted.

The first precept of all Buddhism, whether Mahayana or Theravada, the first precept of the Triple Gem, is taking refuge in the Buddha, a historical person. Mahayana Buddhists believe that their sutras were compiled from centuries of oral tradition that went back to the Buddha himself.

 

[ananda]

We can't. The truth is we know far too little about the historical Buddha, less than we do about Christ or Confucius, far less than we do about Muhammad. Fortunately tying Buddhism back to the historical Buddha is far less important than it is for either Christ or Muhammad where the kergyma (message) is far intimately tied to the historicity of the events it is based upon. The various forms Buddhism can be judged solely on the basis of the content of their doctrines.

This is true ... it is said that the historical Buddha, during his earthly lifetime in samsara after his Awakening, discouraged emphasis on his physical presence, and extolled his teachings instead, e.g.:

• "If anyone wishes to see me, he should look at my Teachings and practice them" ... and
• "if [one] should take hold of the edge of my outer garment and should walk close behind me, step for step, yet if he should be covetous, strongly attracted by pleasures of the senses, malevolent in thought, of corrupt mind and purpose, of confused recollection, inattentive and not contemplative, scatter-brained, his sense-faculties uncontrolled, then he is far from me and I am far from him ... if [one] should be staying even a hundred miles away, yet he is not covetous, not strongly attracted by the pleasures of the senses, not malevolent in thought, not of corrupt mind and purpose, his collection firmly set, attentive, contemplative, his thoughts be one-pointed, restrained in his sense-faculties, then he is near me and I am near him." (Samyuttanikaya)

... and that the proper way to honor him was to practice his teachings:

• "whatever monk or nun, layman or laywoman, abides by the Dhamma, lives uprightly in the Dhamma, walks in the way of the Dhamma, it is by such a one that the Tathagata [Buddha] is respected, venerated, esteemed, worshipped, and honored in the highest degree." (Dighanikaya 16)

 

[nightflight]

I must be honest that my knowledge of Buddhism is mostly limited to Pure Land Buddhism, which happens to be the most commonly practiced form of Mahayana Buddhism in the East.

I practiced Shin in the past. I still consider Call of the Infinite as one of my favorite books. I find myself though moving closer to Christianity.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes?

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

Buddhists pray to and take refuge in various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but they are understood to be awakened human beings, and that, by taking refuge in them, we will also be led to our own awakening.

It's a common misconception that all Buddhists are atheists, which seems to be perpetuated by Western secularists who insist on projecting their understanding of Buddhism onto all Buddhists and by Theravada Buddhists who insist that their way is the only legitimate way to live the Dharma.

If you called a Mahayana Buddhist who's taken a Bodhisattva Vow, believes the Dalai Lama to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, and who prays to Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life, an atheist, would that really make sense in the way someone like Richard Dawkins would use the term?

Not taking away from the post, as I am aware of Buddhism having many flavors and have shared on it before - as seen here:

While you have Christians familiar with the culture who know how to interact with it, you also have a lot of misunderstandings - for the Buddhists don't claim that Siddhartha Gautama was divine in the sense that Jesus was supposed to be divine.....even though many Christians already knew nuances on what it meant to be divine and honor authority (with it even being the case that there was already a concept of grace found within Pure Land Buddhism just as it was within Christianity if aware of Shinran Shonin, deemed to be Japan's "Martin Luther .... more shared here and here/here in Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology ).......and in the midst of things, the Japanese nobility saw a threat to their power from the outside and lopped off its head before it could really take root.

Many have felt that Christianity was not allowed to flourish as it did in other parts of Asia due to the fact that while Japan was closed to Christianity for 200 years because of the Christian Expulsion Edict, Buddhism was not, which gave it even more time to spread....and grow in strength while Christianity (including its Eastern form) was placed in a stranglehold that caused it to shrink and be forgotten from the collective history of Japan for how important it was in the centuries of development for Japan's culture.

People don't tend to follow something if it seems to not be important to who they are - and they may even reject it further when those in government not wanting it to be remembered point to negative variations of it as being the sole definition of how it always was.....leading to people mentally thinking it's simply a "foreign" thought to be rejected to keep themselves pure. Although there have been similar cases throughout other parts of Asia with Christianity being persecuted (including those forms connecting with the culture), in Japan it seems to be a case of having great disconnect in history due to a lot of history forgotten...

The ways that Buddhists seem to vary on the matter is rather fascinating. With Buddhism, I've been fascinated by the ways that there were Buddhists who had a theistic form similar to what was seen in Protestant Christianity. Specifically, many Christians already knew nuances on what it meant to be divine and honor authority (with it even being the case that there was already a concept of grace found within Pure Land Buddhism just as it was within Christianity if aware of Shinran Shonin, deemed to be Japan's "Martin Luther .... more shared here and here/here in Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology - and other places being here )

• • Shiran's Gospel of Pure Grace

• 
  
  • Human insufficiency in Shinran and Kierkegaard - Soren .

​

​

​

But sincerely, When exactly did the switch to Buddhism take place? Not too long ago, as seen in your thread Christians are the most oppressed religion in the world (as well as here, here and here), You were in an entirely different view not too long ago and I don't know if you noted it at some point what your reasons were for either switching to something else or riding the wave for where you are now compared to anything in-between.

 

[smaneck]

If the goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, the historicity of Buddha's life story is important, because how can we otherwise know that what Buddhism teaches about enlightenment is even possible?

Presumably you would know by whether people actually become enlightened by following his teachings. What other proof can there be?

Furthermore, Pure Land Buddhism and any other form of devotion to the Buddha is based on the Buddha being an actual historical person to whom one can be devoted.

But the Pure Land Sect is devoted to an entirely different Buddha than Siddhartha Guatama, the historic Buddha.

The first precept of all Buddhism, whether Mahayana or Theravada, the first precept of the Triple Gem, is taking refuge in the Buddha, a historical person. Mahayana Buddhists believe that their sutras were compiled from centuries of oral tradition that went back to the Buddha himself.

I'm not saying they don't believe it, I'm saying it can't be proven historically nor do I think it matters that much.
Have you ever heard koan "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"?

 

[Yoder777]

I practiced Shin in the past. I still consider Call of the Infinite as one of my favorite books. I find myself though moving closer to Christianity.

Please elaborate.

 

[Yoder777]

But the Pure Land Sect is devoted to an entirely different Buddha than Siddhartha Guatama, the historic Buddha.

This is a Shin Buddhist's perspective on Amida Buddha:

First, "Amida" symbolizes Shakyamuni, a historical person. Just as Strickland, the hero in Summerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence, is a symbol of the painter Gauguin, a historical person, "Amida" can be considered a symbol of Shakyamuni, a historical person. We can say that "Amida" symbolizes the "humble and dynamic spirit" of Shakyamuni. As we have seen, Mahayanists created the concept of "Amida" in order to criticize the fossilized doctrines of Hinayanists and restore the vital spirit of Shakyamuni.
Second, "Amida" symbolizes the Dharma or universal Buddhahood. Mahayanists created the concept not only to express the vital spirit of Shakyamuni, but also to show the spiritual basis of Shakyamuni and all human beings. They wanted to show that just as Shakyamuni was awakened and liberated by the Dharma (or universal Buddhahood), all human beings are awakened and liberated by it.
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/WhatIsAmida-Haneda.html

The story of Dharmakara is symbolic of the historical life of Siddhartha Gautama. Both were royalty who forsook their wealth and power for the enlightenment of all beings. So when I call on the name of Amida Buddha, I imagine Amida as being the historical Siddhartha Gautama in his enlightened state, free of all human limitations and shining his infinite light on us all. Amida Buddha also transcends the historical Buddha, in representing the eternal Buddha that is within all people and all things.

 

[Yoder777]

But sincerely, When exactly did the switch to Buddhism take place? Not too long ago, as seen in your thread Christians are the most oppressed religion in the world (as well as here, here and here), You were in an entirely different view not too long ago and I don't know if you noted it at some point what your reasons were for either switching to something else or riding the wave for where you are now compared to anything in-between.

That's a very good question. I started reading Marcus Borg and other liberal Christian authors in 2009, which showed me that the traditional Christian faith in which I was raised is not what the historical Jesus originally intended. I then started attending services at Unity Church, which is a liberal church based on the words of Jesus in the Gospels along with Hindu and Buddhist influences.

Now that I am in a new city, the Unity congregation is not very good, is very small, and the pastor is not a good teacher like the one in my old city. Since I already had this basic understanding of Buddhism, and since I needed a healthy way to relieve stress in my wife, I then turned to studying and practicing Buddhism. Pure Land Buddhism, of all Buddhist paths, appeals to me the most, since it is based on devotion to the Buddha and trusting in his grace, instead of relying solely on your own efforts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Temporary pleasure and joys which leads to long-term suffering in this world is meant to drive us to seek and find the extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace.

Meant to? By whom?

The closest I can get to a "meant to" leads more to the opposite conclusion. Given that we are the product of evolution, we are "meant to" seek temporary pleasure and joys because those help us to survive and reproduce, and seeking an extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace is at best a way of emotionally dealing with the thought of death. (I don't think that evolution is actually a source of normativity, but this is the closest that I can get to a "meant to".)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

Meant to? By whom?
eudaimonia,
Mark

I don't know ... I see it as a universal "law" like the law of gravity. I don't know where it came from or who it came from ... I just see that it exists!

 

[nightflight]

Please elaborate.

Well, both religions teach salvation (or enlightenment) by grace; however there was an historical Jesus; I can't say the same for Amida.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, both religions teach salvation (or enlightenment) by grace; however there was an historical Jesus; I can't say the same for Amida.

Why would Amida have to be "historical", by which I suppose you mean a human being on Earth at some time in the past?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[smaneck]

Well, both religions teach salvation (or enlightenment) by grace; however there was an historical Jesus; I can't say the same for Amida.

Like I said, rooting the kerygma in historical events is more important to the Abrahamic religions than it is to Indic religions.

 

[Yoder777]

Well, both religions teach salvation (or enlightenment) by grace; however there was an historical Jesus; I can't say the same for Amida.

There are allegorical interpretations of the Pure Land sutras:

First, "Amida" symbolizes Shakyamuni, a historical person. Just as Strickland, the hero in Summerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence, is a symbol of the painter Gauguin, a historical person, "Amida" can be considered a symbol of Shakyamuni, a historical person. We can say that "Amida" symbolizes the "humble and dynamic spirit" of Shakyamuni. As we have seen, Mahayanists created the concept of "Amida" in order to criticize the fossilized doctrines of Hinayanists and restore the vital spirit of Shakyamuni.
Second, "Amida" symbolizes the Dharma or universal Buddhahood. Mahayanists created the concept not only to express the vital spirit of Shakyamuni, but also to show the spiritual basis of Shakyamuni and all human beings. They wanted to show that just as Shakyamuni was awakened and liberated by the Dharma (or universal Buddhahood), all human beings are awakened and liberated by it.
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/WhatIsAmida-Haneda.html

For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that Amida Buddha is a literal person who is distinct from Shakyamuni Buddha:

We learn of the existence of the Pure Land through the words of the Buddha. In the Amitabha Sutra, the Buddha said, "A hundred thousand million Buddha Lands beyond the saha world is a world called ¡¥Ultimate Bliss.'In this world, there is a Buddha called Amitabha Buddha, who is currently teaching the Dharma."The Buddha is a holy person and his words are infallible. In fact, one of the Buddha's thirty-two marks of excel-lence was his broad, long tongue. His tongue, when extended, could cover his nose and face. This mark of excellence is the result of never speaking falsely. Thus, when the Buddha told us that there is a pure land of ultimate bliss in this universe, we can most definitely believe that it exists...
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/D - Chinese Mahayana Buddhism/Authors/Hsing Yun/The Amitabha Sutra/14 Amitabha Sutra.htm

If Buddha is the Awakened One, then we can trust his teaching regarding Amida's Pure Land. Furthermore, shouldn't we consider the testimony of Pure Land Buddhists throughout history who witnessed the Pure Land themselves?

The Record of Sages of Pure Land, a three volume record compiled in the Ch'ing Dynasty, contained many cases of old masters throughout history who practiced the Pure Land School of Buddhism and were reborn into the Pure Land. For example, there was the case of Master Hui Yuan, the Founding Patriarch of the Pure Land School. He practiced mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and personally witnessed the manifestation of Amitabha Buddha on three separate occasions.

There was a record about a monk during the T'ang Dynasty by the name of Master Shan Tao. Every time he recited the name of Amitabha Buddha, a ray of light would emanate from his mouth. Ten times he recited the name of Amitabha Buddha, ten rays of light would emanate from his mouth. A hundred times he recited the name of Amitabha Buddha, a hundred rays of light would emanate from his mouth. Because of this, he was also called the Monk of Brightness.

Of more recent times, there is the example of Master Yin Kuang. He recited the name of Amitabha Buddha all his life and was able to foretell the time of his passing. There were also many cases of secular men and women who recited the name of Amitabha Buddha and were reborn in the Pure Land. In 1948, there was a layman by the name of Sung-Nien Wu, who informed his family and friends that he would pass away at eight the next morning and asked them to come by his house to help him recite the name of Amitabha Buddha at the moment of his passing. When everyone arrived at his house the following morning, he was eating his breakfast as usual and did not look like someone who was about to pass away. However, just before 8:00 a.m., he sat in a lotus position and passed away in the midst of his family and friends chanting the name of Amitabha Buddha.

There are many records of people throughout history who practiced mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and were able to foretell the time of their passings. Some could see Amitabha Buddha coming to welcome them, others could hear delightful music in the air, and some others could smell soothing fragrance in the room. These auspicious signs can be experienced by any Pure Land practitioners who have attained perfection in their mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and are reborn in the Pure Land. The wondrous working of the Pure Land School is not something that those who have yet to practice this method of cultivation can comprehend.
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/D - Chinese Mahayana Buddhism/Authors/Hsing Yun/The Amitabha Sutra/14 Amitabha Sutra.htm

 

[Yoder777]

Like I said, rooting the kerygma in historical events is more important to the Abrahamic religions than it is to Indic religions.

When it comes to basic principles like the eight-fold path and the four noble truths, perhaps the literalness of historical events isn't so important. But when it comes to any form of devotion to a Buddha or a god who is said to have acted in human history, it's literal historicity is very important to Indian religions.

Would you mind telling a follower of Krishna that the Bhagavad Gita is just a fable, that Krishna never existed? And as a Pure Land Buddhist, can I place my trust in Amida's vow to save all mankind if I also believe that Amida never existed? I am open to the interpretation that Amida Buddha and Gautama Buddha are the same person, given the similarities of their life stories, but to think that my devotion is really to nothing and no one at all is going a little bit too far.

It's okay if you don't believe that these people and beings never existed, but don't make false claims of what people in Dharmic paths believe and practice if what you are saying isn't true.

 

[smaneck]

Would you mind telling a follower of Krishna that the Bhagavad Gita is just a fable, that Krishna never existed?

The Bhagavad-Gita is certainly not a fable. It is one the most profound pieces of spiritual literature ever written. Trying to trace down the historical Krishna, however, is not so easy to do. The story of Krishna appears to be influenced by at least four different figures. Now as a Baha'i I believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God, but I sure couldn't tell you historical which Krishna.
I think I'm right when I say most devotees to Krishna became such because of the Bhagavad-Gita, rather than believing in the Bhagavad-Gita because of Krishna.

And as a Pure Land Buddhist, can I place my trust in Amida's vow to save all mankind if I also believe that Amida never existed?

Hang on. To say Amitabha was not a historical personage, is not the same as saying he doesn't exist. He can have a Sambhogakāya even if he never had a Nirmaṇakāya.

 

[Yoder777]

Hang on. To say Amitabha was not a historical personage, is not the same as saying he doesn't exist. He can have a Sambhogakāya even if he never had a Nirmaṇakāya.

Do a majority of Pure Land Buddhists today believe that the Pure Land is a literal place that emanated from the Vow of Amida Buddha? This I would like to know.

 

[smaneck]

Do a majority of Pure Land Buddhists today believe that the Pure Land is a literal place that emanated from the Vow of Amida Buddha? This I would like to know.

I presume they do. Where or what it is, I wouldn't know.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If the goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, the historicity of Buddha's life story is important, because how can we otherwise know that what Buddhism teaches about enlightenment is even possible?

Practical application, personal experience. Ultimately, it's the message that matters, not the messenger. The lesson taught, not the teacher.

It's completely irrelevant whether there's any truth to the myth that Siddharta could walk and talk the moment he was born, or whether flowers sprouted wherever he set his foot. All of these pious legends can be completely ahistorical, as long as the observations about suffering and how to escape the vicious circle are accurate.

 

[Yoder777]

Practical application, personal experience. Ultimately, it's the message that matters, not the messenger. The lesson taught, not the teacher.

It's completely irrelevant whether there's any truth to the myth that Siddharta could walk and talk the moment he was born, or whether flowers sprouted wherever he set his foot. All of these pious legends can be completely ahistorical, as long as the observations about suffering and how to escape the vicious circle are accurate.

Indeed, separating philosophy from religion does not work well in the case of Buddhism. Trying to tease apart these two strands of the dispensation would have seemed a futile endeavor to most Buddhists over the long history of the tradition. We in the West need to get over this false dichotomy, which has no significance in speaking about Buddhism or other Asian religions. The story behind the pilgrimage place of Samkasya illustrates this point nicely. After the Buddha magically flies to the heaven on the summit of Mount Sumeru to meet his mother Mahamaya, who has been reborn there as a deva, the gods build a bejeweled staircase so that he may descend back down to earth at Samkasya—a famous scene called “the descent from the realm of the divinities” (devavatara). The reason for this supernal visit? To teach his mother the Abhidharma, the highest form of Buddhist philosophy.
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/buddhism-philosophy-or-religion

What then is the status of the Buddha? Technically, he is a human, among the five other rebirth destinies (sadgati) in samsara: gods, demigods, animals, ghosts, and denizens of hell. But he is unlike any other human, both in his relation to the gods and in his physical and mental qualities.

In his penultimate lifetime, the Buddha-to-be was a god, abiding, where all future buddhas abide, in the Tushita heaven. It was from there that he surveyed the world, and chose the place of his final birth, his caste, his clan, and his parents. After his enlightenment, the Buddha spent 49 days in contemplation in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree, concluding, the story goes, that what he had understood was too profound for others to understand, and thus futile to try to teach to anyone. The most powerful of the gods, Brahma, descended from his heaven to implore the Buddha to teach, arguing that although many might not be able to understand, there were some with “little dust in their eyes” who would. This is an important moment because it makes clear that the Buddha knew something that the gods did not, and that the gods had been waiting for a new buddha to appear in the world to teach them the path to freedom from rebirth, even from rebirth in heaven. For this reason, one of the epithets of the Buddha is devatideva—“god above the gods.”

Although a human, the Buddha has a body unlike any other. It is adorned with the 32 marks of a superman (mahapurusalaksana), such as images of wheels on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet, a bump on the top of his head, forty teeth, and a circle of hair between his eyes that emits beams of light. Some of the marks are characteristics found in animals rather than humans: webbed fingers and toes like a duck’s, arms that extend below the knees like an ape’s, and a penis that retracts into body like a horse’s. His mind knows all of his past lives and the past lives of all beings in the universe. In fact, he is omniscient (although the various Buddhist schools have different ideas about exactly what this means). Even in the early tradition, it is said that he can live for an eon or until the end of the eon, if he is asked to do so. And in the Lotus Sutra it says that his lifespan is immeasurable. He can go anywhere in the universe. He can perform all manner of miracles.

Did he create the universe? No. Is he omniscient? Yes. Is he omnipotent? It depends on what you mean. Is he eternal? Sort of. Is he God? You decide.
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/god-or-human

Please stop projecting Western secularism onto Buddhism. It is insulting to what a majority of Buddhists believe and practice.