"God" in Buddhism

[Starstreak M86]

Hey guys, I'm back! I haven't seen you in a LOOOONG time. TOO long.

I found some interesting sites that talk about the topic of "God" in Buddhism. There is a common Western misunderstanding of Buddhism, many scholars are under the wrongful impression that it is "atheistic" or "agnostic". Some even think it is "theistic". Really, Buddhism is neither theistic or atheistic in nature, it alot closer to monism and holism. One could say it is between and beyond Theism and Atheism.

http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/ChristianFAQ.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/God.htm


What do you think?


--Starstreak M86

 

[psychedelicist]

I think they should all just stop prancing around the topic with their 'mysticism' and just answer the question, dang it

 

[Starstreak M86]

Hey!

Well, they do answer it in a way. If your definition of "God" is an anthropomorphic being sitting outside of the Cosmos, with emotions, gender and what not, then no, "God" is not in Buddhism. The closest thing to this type of god in Buddhism is Brahma, borrowed from Hinduism. Brahma, in Mahayana Buddhism, is a benevolent deity living in one of the higher heavens. He is not all-powerful, or all-knowing (an all-powerful and all-knowing personal deity is nonsensical to Buddhism and anti-thetical to the Buddha's teachings), but he is benevolent.

If by "God" is meant the sum of inter-dependent risings in the Cosmos, the transpersonal Ultimate Reality nature of Existence, and the objective emptiness and lack of self-inherentence in all things, then yes, "God" is very much a part of Buddhism. "Shunyata" and "Nirvana" stand very close to the mystical interpretation of "Godhead" in mystical Western traditions. Shunyata is a transpersonal ultimate reality that is eternal, contains all things in it, and all is ultimately identical to it. Nirvana is beyond movement and stillness, neither X nor Y, nor non-X nor non-Y or either or both.


However, the concept of a "Creator" exists in Buddhism in the form of Dharmakaya, the transpersonal processes of emanation and dissolution. It reacts to humanity in a "personal" way through everything we experience. It is not a personal God, but can be thought of as "God" in a metaphorical way.

 

[Starstreak M86]

Personally, I prefer the term "Ultimate Reality" or "Supreme Ultimate" (like in Daoism). The term "God" is loaded with too many Western assumptions and implications. Just like the term "soul" is loaded with too many Western assumptions and implications. Most of the time, Western scholars misunderstand because they only seem to understand through a dualistic theistic view, or through a secular, atheistic view.

And many Eastern philosophers and practitioners do a poor job explaining it to Westerners because they spend too much of their energy trying to distance themselves from Western assumptions about certain words, and not enough time making any positive statements or drawing any common grounds.

As you said, they "prance" around the issue.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


there are plenty of Gods in Buddhism.

none of them are helpful in ones practice which is why they are not emphasized to any degree.

actually, Ishvara would be closer than MahaBrahma with regards to Creator Deities that the Buddhists were talking about.

it seems, Starstreak, that you have a rather unorthodox understanding of the Three Kayas, in particular the Dharmakaya. nevertheless, it wouldn't be correct to assert that this is viewed as the "Ground of Being" for the Buddha Shakyamuni expressly denies that there is anything that can rightly considered as the Ground of Being.

metta,

~v

 

[Starstreak M86]

Namaste all,


there are plenty of Gods in Buddhism.

none of them are helpful in ones practice which is why they are not emphasized to any degree.

I agree. I believe that gods exist, but I don't believe they can bring enlightenment, they can grant material favors. I believe that some gods are close to enlightenment and can teach knowledge to others like Buddha did.

At a popular level though, Buddhism is just as theistic as any other religion. Folk Buddhism has all sorts of gods, titans, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, sages, etc.

actually, Ishvara would be closer than MahaBrahma with regards to Creator Deities that the Buddhists were talking about.

True.

it seems, Starstreak, that you have a rather unorthodox understanding of the Three Kayas, in particular the Dharmakaya. nevertheless, it wouldn't be correct to assert that this is viewed as the "Ground of Being" for the Buddha Shakyamuni expressly denies that there is anything that can rightly considered as the Ground of Being.

metta,

~v

Well, "Ground of Non-Being" then. Sorry, I was just using Western terminology to describe Shunyata.

Shunyata is not really a type of being, it is non-being as in no personal ego and lack of self-inherentence in everything that exists in Samsara. It's not anihilation, because the Buddha did also express that there exists consciousness in Shunyata and Nirvana, but that it is a de-centralized consciousness that is not centered or focused anywhere.

This is kind of similar to the Advaita Vedanta concept of Para-Brahman (Beyond God). The only difference is that Hinduism identified Everything and All with the "self". Buddhism identifies Nothingness and Open-ness with the "self". Hinduism says that everything is you, Buddhism says that ultiamtely there is no "you", there just Is.

I don't think the two positions are as different as they seem. Most of the differences are just in terminology. Identifying everything with yourself is just like denying that there is an inherent self. Denying an inherent self is just like identifying yourself as being everything and beyond everything with no centralized "you".

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Starstreak,

thank you for the post.

I agree. I believe that gods exist, but I don't believe they can bring enlightenment, they can grant material favors. I believe that some gods are close to enlightenment and can teach knowledge to others like Buddha did.

which, of course, is not a Buddhist point of view nevertheless, i think that we agree on the substance though differ in the details

At a popular level though, Buddhism is just as theistic as any other religion. Folk Buddhism has all sorts of gods, titans, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, sages, etc.

i don't know what "folk" Buddhism is. clearly, when beings are raised in a cultural millieu in which Buddhism has become prominent, many of the cultural traditions are adapted with the adoption of the Buddha Dharma. this is, in my view, a strength of religious traditions which can manage to do this, not all of them can. many religions seek to overturn or suppress previous methods of religious practice, which seems counter-intuitive to their aim, in my view.

Well, "Ground of Non-Being" then. Sorry, I was just using Western terminology to describe Shunyata.

hmm... this is a bit problematic, in my view. it is also not the ground of "non-being". there is no ultimate source or underlying reality which gives rise to all things, things "interare" with each other in mutual dependence and relation.

Shunyata is not really a type of being, it is non-being as in no personal ego and lack of self-inherentence in everything that exists in Samsara.

agreed. Shunyata is the lack of an inherent "is-ness" to a phenomena, so it would encompass sentient and non-sentient forms and structures.

It's not anihilation,

that is correct. often, in my view, this term gets very convoluted and confused in the translation simply because English doesn't really deal with this concept in as straight forward a linguistic manner.

Sri Nagarjunas "Entrance to the Middle Way" expounds the teaching of Shunyata to a very large degree. within the text it speaks about beings that become caught with the idea of emptiness, void, anihiliation. this is, generally speaking, a more difficult issue to overcome than being which are caught by the idea of a life, a being, a soul and a self.

because the Buddha did also express that there exists consciousness in Shunyata and Nirvana, but that it is a de-centralized consciousness that is not centered or focused anywhere.

i'd be interested to read the reference for this view.

This is kind of similar to the Advaita Vedanta concept of Para-Brahman (Beyond God). The only difference is that Hinduism identified Everything and All with the "self".

well... not exactly. whilst it is true that this is identified with a self, Buddha Dharma holds a) that no such a thing exists and b) that there isn't a ground of being by which all things manifest. many beings have the view that Buddhism teaches a sort of monism, however this view is not correct.

Buddhism identifies Nothingness and Open-ness with the "self".

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

since there is no self, there is nothing which can be identified with it, including the ideas of nothingness, which i take to mean Shunyata. though, to be frank, i find this term to be rather problematic in English given the connotation of "thingness".

Hinduism says that everything is you, Buddhism says that ultiamtely there is no "you", there just Is.

I don't think the two positions are as different as they seem. Most of the differences are just in terminology. Identifying everything with yourself is just like denying that there is an inherent self. Denying an inherent self is just like identifying yourself as being everything and beyond everything with no centralized "you".

interesting view. thank you for sharing.

metta,

~v

 

[Starstreak M86]

Namaste Starstreak,

thank you for the post.

You're welcome!

Although we seem to differ in details, we seem to agree on the main issues. I'm kind of new at this because I've only recently discovered my Buddhistic disposition, and I'm still in the process of serious study of Buddhism along with other Eastern religions.

So, I'm still a neophyte. :o

which, of course, is not a Buddhist point of view nevertheless, i think that we agree on the substance though differ in the details

So in Buddhism, all the gods are only on the same level as humans? None of the gods have any enlightenment? (I'm not being condescending, I'm just asking)

But aren't there Buddhist rituals dedicated to certain deities?

i don't know what "folk" Buddhism is. clearly, when beings are raised in a cultural millieu in which Buddhism has become prominent, many of the cultural traditions are adapted with the adoption of the Buddha Dharma. this is, in my view, a strength of religious traditions which can manage to do this, not all of them can. many religions seek to overturn or suppress previous methods of religious practice, which seems counter-intuitive to their aim, in my view.

Well....I just meant "folk Buddhism" as in the Buddhism practiced by the common people in Asia. I've heard it's very different than Buddhism as practiced by Westerners.

hmm... this is a bit problematic, in my view. it is also not the ground of "non-being". there is no ultimate source or underlying reality which gives rise to all things, things "interare" with each other in mutual dependence and relation.

Yes, interdependent arisings.

Well, in a way, isn't everything part of a psycho-phystical continuum not bound to "time" and "space"? Isn't that continuum sort of a non-dual ground in a non-euclydian sense?

agreed. Shunyata is the lack of an inherent "is-ness" to a phenomena, so it would encompass sentient and non-sentient forms and structures.

that is correct. often, in my view, this term gets very convoluted and confused in the translation simply because English doesn't really deal with this concept in as straight forward a linguistic manner.

Sri Nagarjunas "Entrance to the Middle Way" expounds the teaching of Shunyata to a very large degree. within the text it speaks about beings that become caught with the idea of emptiness, void, anihiliation. this is, generally speaking, a more difficult issue to overcome than being which are caught by the idea of a life, a being, a soul and a self.

Yes, I agree. Western words for Buddhist terms are very limiting as Western languages were never really adapted for deeper, mystical words and have only recently started making new words to describe these things.

i'd be interested to read the reference for this view.

well... not exactly. whilst it is true that this is identified with a self, Buddha Dharma holds a) that no such a thing exists and b) that there isn't a ground of being by which all things manifest. many beings have the view that Buddhism teaches a sort of monism, however this view is not correct.

Well, again I meant a "ground of Being" as in a Buddha-state of liberation. In other words, a free ground of being (that probably sounds confusing :confusing).

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

since there is no self, there is nothing which can be identified with it, including the ideas of nothingness, which i take to mean Shunyata. though, to be frank, i find this term to be rather problematic in English given the connotation of "thingness"

I agree. I only meant "self" on a relative, personal level.

interesting view. thank you for sharing.

metta,

~v

Sure thing!

 

[rahul_sharma]

Hinduism says that everything is you, Buddhism says that ultiamtely there is no "you", there just Is.

I don't think the two positions are as different as they seem. Most of the differences are just in terminology. Identifying everything with yourself is just like denying that there is an inherent self. Denying an inherent self is just like identifying yourself as being everything and beyond everything with no centralized "you.

Beautiful Explanation in simple words!

 

[urnotme]

Personally, I prefer the term "Ultimate Reality" or "Supreme Ultimate" (like in Daoism). The term "God" is loaded with too many Western assumptions and implications. Just like the term "soul" is loaded with too many Western assumptions and implications. Most of the time, Western scholars misunderstand because they only seem to understand through a dualistic theistic view, or through a secular, atheistic view.

And many Eastern philosophers and practitioners do a poor job explaining it to Westerners because they spend too much of their energy trying to distance themselves from Western assumptions about certain words, and not enough time making any positive statements or drawing any common grounds.

As you said, they "prance" around the issue.

How about GAOTU = grand archetect of the universe? It's an appropriate description it is loaded with massonic assumptions. I think any name or God has assumptions associated with it. God is a generic word, perhaps too generic..

 

[Starstreak M86]

Beautiful Explanation in simple words!

Thank you!

I think the main differences between the Advaita school of Hinduism and the Mahayana sect of Buddhism is largely in differing terminology and symbology. Here's another way to put Hindu and Buddhist views on "God"/Ultimate Reality/Nirvana/Brahman:

If God was an ocean, and humans were drops:

Hinduism = There is no ocean, there is only the drop

Buddhism = There is no drop, there is only the ocean

One is from the point of view of a human looking at the Cosmos seeing themself reflected in it (Buddhism), the other is from the point of view of the Cosmos looking inward on Itself reflected in people (Hinduism).

 

[Starstreak M86]

How about GAOTU = grand archetect of the universe? It's an appropriate description it is loaded with massonic assumptions. I think any name or God has assumptions associated with it. God is a generic word, perhaps too generic..

That works too.

Yes, the term "God" can be a window to the Infinite, and can be a barrier that closes out deep conversation. Unfortunately, to many Westerners that word is loaded with as many connatations as the word "Hitler" or "adulterer" or "pagan". It can be hard to describe Reality using that word if you don't mean the type of God as taught by ministers on early morning televangelist programs.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Starstreak,

thank you for the post.

Although we seem to differ in details, we seem to agree on the main issues. I'm kind of new at this because I've only recently discovered my Buddhistic disposition, and I'm still in the process of serious study of Buddhism along with other Eastern religions.

So, I'm still a neophyte.

no worries wait till we start talking about the philosophical schools and their differences

So in Buddhism, all the gods are only on the same level as humans? None of the gods have any enlightenment? (I'm not being condescending, I'm just asking)

not on the same level, per se, in terms of rebirth. in point of fact, a human rebirth is more advantageous than a rebirth as a deity since, as a human, we have the best and most apt chance to practice the Dharma.

the gods exist in a few basic senses. essentially, however, you are correct.... gods are not Awakened beings and, in this sense, they are like humans.... and all other sentient beings for that matter.

But aren't there Buddhist rituals dedicated to certain deities?

well... the short answer is "yes" but this is a special sort of thing depending on the particular Vehicle and philosophical school which is being practiced. one will often find this sort of terminology in the Vajrayana teachings, however, we must try to remember that the Buddhist conception of what deities are is really quite a bit different than theists generally have. in this sense, the deities are actually representations of actualized and Awakened aspects of consciousness. perhaps a bit technical for this forum.

Well....I just meant "folk Buddhism" as in the Buddhism practiced by the common people in Asia. I've heard it's very different than Buddhism as practiced by Westerners.

no such a creature i realize that it is popular in certain circles to hold a view of "folk" Buddhism as opposed to "monastic" or "elite" Buddhism. to my way of thinking, this represents a fairly significant misunderstanding of how the Buddhadharma is transmitted and, perhaps more importantly, how it is practiced by the various beings which do so.

it is quite correct that as Buddhism moved through the various cultures in Asia, it adopted local forms and conventions to facilitate its exposure and acceptance. so much so that, when you look at the carvings, paintings and so forth, you will notice the Buddha is dipcted differently based on the cultural perceptions. check out the faces of the Korean Buddha compared with that of the Tibetan Buddha, for instance

Yes, interdependent arisings.

Well, in a way, isn't everything part of a psycho-phystical continuum not bound to "time" and "space"? Isn't that continuum sort of a non-dual ground in a non-euclydian sense?

that is certainly something that QM would seem to support, at least in one of the main views.

i'm not sure that has much bearing on the Buddhist view of G!D all that much

recall that Buddha Shakyamuni taught that there was nothing which could rightly be regarded as the "ground of being" or "source" for all phenomena. there is some elaboration in the later Mahayana, especially in the Madhyamika philosophical formulations, however this is mainly for discussion purposes as Nagarjuna makes clear.

metta,

~v

 

[Zen_Woof]

Hello.

Gods exist but they are not worshipped in the way the Christian God is because the God realm is not the ultimate state of existence. Indeed, to be reborn as a God can be unfortunate because you will be so content that you will not have an urge to seek enlightenment.

Does this answer your question?

Metta,
ZW

 

[bmoynihan]

Again I would say it depends on what you call 'God'!

Being a 'God' is not permanent, so in reality you could be a God in your next life, in fact many people who have died who lead simple, loving lives may now be Gods!

 

[Starstreak M86]

that is certainly something that QM would seem to support, at least in one of the main views.

i'm not sure that has much bearing on the Buddhist view of G!D all that much

recall that Buddha Shakyamuni taught that there was nothing which could rightly be regarded as the "ground of being" or "source" for all phenomena. there is some elaboration in the later Mahayana, especially in the Madhyamika philosophical formulations, however this is mainly for discussion purposes as Nagarjuna makes clear.

metta,

~v
[/size][/font]

Hey, how's it going? Namaste!

Yes, I read up on the teachings of Nagarjuna, I found it INCREDIBLE to say the least. He is now without a doubt one of my favorite philosophers of all time.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm


Yes, Nagarjuna denied the "ground of being" a changeless, permanent, eternal existence that is inherent. However, he did not deny the existence of "ground of no being" if you want to look at it that way. If you view "ground of being" as the eternal process of interdependent arisings and emptiness in all substantial phenomena, I guess that could be a "ground of being".

Nagarjuna stressed that things "neither exist, nor don't exist, nor both nor neither".

I like to try and wrap my mind around that.

Namaste,
Starstreak

 

[Starstreak M86]

Hello.

Gods exist but they are not worshipped in the way the Christian God is because the God realm is not the ultimate state of existence. Indeed, to be reborn as a God can be unfortunate because you will be so content that you will not have an urge to seek enlightenment.

Does this answer your question?

Metta,
ZW

Hey!

Yes it does answer my question, quite well. The gods of Buddhism seem much like the gods of ancient Rome and Greece, having status and influence, yet not being "creators" in the Western sense, and being subject to birth, death and rebirth like all other beings. Gods simply seem, like in Hinduism, Jainism and Daoism, to be beings that live in a different realm of humans, but subject to the same laws.

Well, the Buddhist scriptures do portray most gods as being ignorant and unenlightened and only seeking pleasure. But, some are painted as exceptions. Avalokiteswara was portrayed as a god who valued compassion over pleasure and became a bodhisattva. Later on, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are portrayed as protector gods of the true Dhamma.

Likewise, some humans live such luxious lives that they do not wish to seek enlightenment and appear contented with pleasure (like the Buddha was before traveling outside of his palace).

 

[Starstreak M86]

Again I would say it depends on what you call 'God'!

Being a 'God' is not permanent, so in reality you could be a God in your next life, in fact many people who have died who lead simple, loving lives may now be Gods!

Ain't it something?

From my knowledge and experience with Buddhism, I'd say the closest thing to a "Godhead" in Buddhism might be the Trikayas, or the Brahamaviharas. In a mystical, transpersonal sense.

 

[JGL53]

…I think the main differences between the Advaita school of Hinduism and the Mahayana sect of Buddhism is largely in differing terminology and symbology. Here's another way to put Hindu and Buddhist views on "God"/Ultimate Reality/Nirvana/Brahman:

If God was an ocean, and humans were drops:

Hinduism = There is no ocean, there is only the drop

Buddhism = There is no drop, there is only the ocean

One is from the point of view of a human looking at the Cosmos seeing themself reflected in it (Buddhism), the other is from the point of view of the Cosmos looking inward on Itself reflected in people (Hinduism)…

Interesting analogy – and quite accurate, I agree. Now, if you continue the analogy for western monotheism: if god was an ocean, then humans would be, what - whale excrement lying on the ocean floor?

I’ve enjoyed reading about a dozen of books by Alan Watts – an ex-Anglican priest and “interpreter” of eastern thought – mainly Buddhism. You seem to have the same viewpoint as he did – are you familiar with his writings or recorded lectures? He was saying basically the same things as you, but back in the 1950s and 1960s in lectures to various group, especially college students.

 

[Zen_Woof]

Hey!

Yes it does answer my question, quite well. The gods of Buddhism seem much like the gods of ancient Rome and Greece, having status and influence, yet not being "creators" in the Western sense, and being subject to birth, death and rebirth like all other beings. Gods simply seem, like in Hinduism, Jainism and Daoism, to be beings that live in a different realm of humans, but subject to the same laws.

Well, the Buddhist scriptures do portray most gods as being ignorant and unenlightened and only seeking pleasure. But, some are painted as exceptions. Avalokiteswara was portrayed as a god who valued compassion over pleasure and became a bodhisattva. Later on, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are portrayed as protector gods of the true Dhamma.

Likewise, some humans live such luxious lives that they do not wish to seek enlightenment and appear contented with pleasure (like the Buddha was before traveling outside of his palace).

Hi.

Being a Westerner, I see most of this stuff as allegorical and use it as a tool to get to the other shore. Remember, we're supposed to leave the raft when we don't need it anymore, which means at some point a Buddhist is no longer Buddhist or any kind of -ist.

Eep! Complex stuff!

Good luck with the Nagarjuna. That'll keep ya busy.

Metta,
ZW