Does Buddhism Believe in God? (ritual, reject, Messiah, beliefs)

[tariqkhwaja]

In this post I will just take quotations out of a book titled Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge, and Truth by Mirza Tahir Ahmad who was the 4th spiritual successor of the Promised Messiah who founded the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. You can find the book online if you search on Google. I am not allowed to post links yet, unfortunately ... oh wait ... I am allowed coooool. Buddhism.

The general impression that prevails in the world about Buddhism is that it is a philosophy of life which, though counted among religions, does not prescribe to the existence of God. This impression is only partially correct.

An exploration of early Buddhist sources as we shall demonstrate, reveals ample proof that Buddhism began like any other Divinely revealed faith with its emphasis on the Unity of God.

Among the so-called atheistic Buddhist sects, it is commonly alleged that Buddha himself denied the existence of God. They support their claim by pointing at the hostility shown to Buddha by the contemporary Hindu pundits. That hostility, they maintain, was largely due to the contempt shown by Buddha to their gods. The Buddhists in general do not bother to analyse the real factors at work which generated misunderstandings leading to the persecution of Buddha. It is quite sufficient for them to believe that Buddha must have rejected the idea of God in totality.

The Buddhist philosophy, teachings and practices remained to be transmitted only verbally for almost five hundred years after Buddha, except in the case of inscriptions on the rocks and stupas made during the illustrious reign of Ashoka (273–232 BC). Ashoka, it should be remembered, appeared some three hundred years after his spiritual master, Buddhaas. This fact in itself is of vital importance because these writings can certainly serve the purpose of judging Buddha's philosophy and way of life from the vantage point of Ashoka. Moreover, at a time when nothing of Buddhism was committed to writing, it was Ashoka alone who left behind a written account of what he understood to be Buddha's teachings. Again, his authority as a true representative of Buddha has never been challenged. What remains therefore, is simply a case of different interpretations.

Coming to the issue of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism, the problems begin with different interpretations of what he is known to have said or done. We disagree with the commonly held view that Buddha was an atheist. We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised.

What Buddha rejected was Vedanta (i.e. doctrines and beliefs found in the Hindu sacred books, the Vedas). He rejected the belief in corporeal manifestations of gods as found in Hinduism. He was severely critical of the Brahmans and regarded them to have corrupted their Divine teaching through their distorted interpretation.

On the Eastern bank of the river Katak, twenty miles from Jagan Nath, there is a rock by the name of Pardohli upon which is written:
'Much longing after the things (of this life) is a disobedience, I again declare; not less so is the laborious ambition of dominion by a prince who would be a propitiator of heaven. Confess and believe in God (Is'ana) who is the worthy object of obedience. For equal to this (belief), I declare unto you, ye shall not find such a means of propitiating heaven. Oh strive ye to obtain this inestimable treasure.'

On the seventh Stupa the same writer quotes:
'Thus spake Devanampiya Piyadasi: "Wherefore from this very hour, I have caused religious discourses to be preached, I have appointed religious observances that mankind, having listened thereto, shall be brought to follow in the right path, and give glory to God* (Is'ana)."

And there are many more evidences if you go to the link ... but this post is becoming too lengthy.

[Storm]

My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Buddhism is neutral on the subject of God, as was the Buddha himself.

Any given Buddhist can be theistic or atheistic as best suits hir understanding of reality.

[tariqkhwaja]

Once again, I must ask you to check out the link.

Buddhism

It gives a detailed insight into the issue with both sides considered.

[Storm]

Sorry, I got this far:

They revere him and pay homage to him, bow to his images and statues and prostrate before them like the adherents of any other idolatrous religion in the world.

... and promptly lost all respect for the author(s).

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Once again, I must ask you to check out the link.

Buddhism

It gives a detailed insight into the issue with both sides considered.

It gives a Muslim view of Buddhism, which is frankly quite worthless.

Buddhism is very diverse. Some Buddhists may believe in gods; other Buddhists don't. None of them need Islam to teach them what Buddhists should believe.

[lilithu]

Tariq, namaste.

I agree with you, actually, that the Buddha did not deny the existence of deity. Your source is wrong however, in saying that Buddhism rejected the corporeal manifestations of gods as found in Hinduism. A cursory glance at Buddhist scripture will show mention of the devas walking and talking and interacting with the Buddha, just as they did in Hindu scriptures.

What Buddhism rejects is the notion that deity is the Ultimate Reality. It says that there may be gods, but these gods will not help you attain liberation from suffering. And indeed, attachment to these gods may keep you in samsara - the cycle of death and rebirth.

What's more, pertaining to the thread that spawned this thread, the Buddha never claimed to be a prophet of God. He never claimed that God had revealed inerrant truths to him. The Buddha said that what he attained, he attained by his own efforts, and than any of us could do the same.

[tariqkhwaja]

It gives a Muslim view of Buddhism, which is frankly quite worthless.
Buddhism is very diverse. Some Buddhists may believe in gods; other Buddhists don't. None of them need Islam to teach them what Buddhists should believe.

Please ...
Firstly, I do not represent mainstream Islam which nowadays doesn't even care about Buddhism.
Secondly, it is a viewpoint supported by arguments/facts and should be taken as such regardless of who the viewpoint comes from. You (and all Buddhists) can choose for yourselves.

[tariqkhwaja]

The following shows that Buddha not only claimed to believe in God (referred to as Brahaman) but also claimed to have had personal communion with Him to the point that he claimed he could show the people of the village the way to God ... which is what Prophets claim.

First he asked, 'Did any Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, ever see Brahmâ face to face?' The answer was 'No'. Then Buddha asked Vâsettha if any of the Brahmans or their pupils of the previous seven generations had seen Brahmâ, and the answer was again, 'No'. Then Buddha asked them if they themselves claimed that they had ever seen Brahmâ. Again the answer was, 'No'. Then he asked Vâsettha that if a man, born and brought up in Manasâkata was asked the way to Manasâkata, would that man be in any doubt or difficulty in answering that question. Vâsettha answered:

At this point Buddha expounded:

Buddha's argument was that the residents of Manasâkata should clearly know the roads leading to Manasakata. Any claimant belonging to God, must also know the path leading to Him, but it would only be possible if he had come from God and had known Him personally. But the answers to the counter questions of Buddha clearly showed that none of the gurus had either seen God or had any personal knowledge of Him. Hence, the identity of God was completely outside and beyond their understanding. Up to this point of the dialogue, Buddha's arguments may have been misunderstood by some to mean that Buddha was declaring there was no God because nobody had met Him. Indeed, the translator in her introduction has suggested that the whole line of argument followed in this discourse is:
'... only an argumentum ad hominem. If you want union with Brahmâ—which you had much better not want—this is the way to attain to it.'8
But this analysis of the discourse shows a total failure on the part of the author to understand what Buddha positively proves. It illustrates how some researchers have been influenced by the beliefs of the Buddhist monks who had misread Buddha's heroic campaign against his contemporary order of the Brahmans. What he categorically rejected were their superstitious beliefs in godlike figures, which they had neither seen nor heard from. But Buddha's answer did not end there. He went on to claim that for the Tathagata, there could be no such difficulty in pointing out the way to God. He went on to claim that he himself was the one who could lead man to God because he had been in communion with Him and had come from Him.

These passages cannot do justice to the complete proof as presented in the chapter on Buddhism. So I must kindly request you to go to the link and read it. It is a long read but I assure you your time will be well spent. Buddhism

[Storm]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

The following shows that Buddha not only claimed to believe in God (referred to as Brahaman) but also claimed to have had personal communion with Him to the point that he claimed he could show the people of the village the way to God ... which is what Prophets claim.

All you've shown is that you do not understand the concept of Brahman.

Edited for link.