• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Buddha Was NOT Silent On God and Metaphysics

Tathagata

Freethinker
It seems that is has been discussed briefly before, but I want to clarify this once and for all. Many have claimed Buddha was Agnostic and some went so far as to say he was Theistic, with no scriptural evidence to back this up whatsoever. My position is that Buddha was Atheistic and in some cases, Anti-Theistic, but never Agnostic or Theist.

The Buddha's Direct Words from Scripture on the Subject of God

Buddha:
"Others think that God is free creator of all things; clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha
: "All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: “This position rises the question of a first cause which the philosophers meet by asserting that their first cause, God and the primal elements, are un-born and un-annihilate; which position is without evidence and is irrational.” [
Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha:
"In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "
The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being's act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. "When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." [Tittha Sutta]

Buddha:
"Others see the eternally of things in the conception of Nirvana as the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; and some, who are especially silly, declare that there are two primary things, a primary substance and a primary soul, that react differently upon each other and thus produce all things from the transformations of qualities; some think that the world is born of action and interaction and that no other cause is necessary;" [Lankavatara Sutra]


Buddha's Discourse On God, the Absolute, the First Cause, and the Nature of Reality

From the Culla Vagga of the Tipitika:

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.


"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.


"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?


(Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul [like a Holy Spirit I guess] because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul [atman].)


"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?


"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.


"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

^^
(This is a very interesting point.)

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."


[Culla Vagga 6:2]


(Note: For those who think the word "God" wasn't in his vocabulary, the Sanskrit/Pali words for God are "Ishvara" and "Brahma" referring to God/Supreme Being/Lord/Creator/First cause, etc.)

 
Last edited:

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
My position is
Your position, yes. Until you are an ordained monk or enlightened, I will regard your view as only your view, whether it is an educated and scripturally based view, or not. No offence meant.

(Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul [like a Holy Spirit I guess] because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul [atman].)
Not really: the term of atman as we know it today in Hinduism is not the same as it was in the Buddha's time.

"The pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the Self to the feeling "I am." Among the religious thinkers of the time, and in common usage, the concept "self" entails the notion of "I am". However, following the Buddha, later Upanishads like the Maitri Upanishad write instead that only the defiled individual self, rather than the universal self, thinks "this is I" or "this is mine"." - From Wikipedia "Atman (Hinduism)". Information itself taken from Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press, 1995, page 34.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

38. "A nihilist" (venayiko). Comy: satta-vinaasako, "destroyer of a being's (personality)"; a denier of individuality.
39. "The annihilation of an existing creature" (sato sattassa ucchedam). Sub-Comy: "One who speaks of doing away with a being that has existence in the ultimate sense (paramatthato), would actually be one who teaches the destruction of a being. But I am speaking of what does not exist in the ultimate sense. I am using that (term 'being') only in the conventional sense as done in common parlance (yathaa loke voharati)."

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile


I think would be good if you, for non-Buddhists, explain the difference between Buddha-nature/Tathagata Nature and the soul, and what happens when one reaches Nirvana and what, in effect, anatta entails, and how it is different from both eternalism and annihilationism, and what moves from body to body and how this is different from a soul and a self.

(Note: For those who think the word "God" wasn't in his vocabulary, the Sanskrit/Pali words for God are "Ishvara" and "Brahma" referring to God/Supreme Being/Lord/Creator/First cause, etc.)
You're not too clear in what you write, here.

From Wikipedia: "Ishvara is Para Brahman endowed with innumerable auspicious qualities (Kalyana Gunas). Ishvara is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, creator of the world, its active ruler and also the eventual destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable — and is yet the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He is the subject of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma. He rules the world with His Māyā — His divine power.". I believe the closest to the Ishvara of Buddha's day was this, and Ishvara was more an infinite and loving being - probably close to the Abrahamic concept of God.

Brahma is the creator deity. He was popular in the Buddha's time, but he is not a popular deity of worship today. Most Hindus believe Brahma will eventually cease to exist.

It should also be pointed out that in Buddhism there are many Brahmas. In fact, Brahma is effectively a term for a group of deities within Buddhism.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Your position, yes. Until you are an ordained monk or enlightened,

You aren't an authority on who does and who doesn't properly understands the dharma. Being a monk isn't a requirement.

And as Thich Nhat Hanh said: "There is no enlightenment outside of daily life."

And since you only find the views of a monk acceptable, I can show you several venerable monks from the two most authoritative Buddhist websites confirm that Buddha was an Atheist.

Buddhism and the God-idea

Do Buddhist believe in god?

I will regard your view as only your view, whether it is an educated and scripturally based view, or not. No offence meant.
My view is actually quite irrelevant when the scripture is so blaringly and blatantly clear on Buddha's position on God. So, you cannot simply call it my view. It's a fact, a fact straight from scripture.


Not really: the term of atman as we know it today in Hinduism is not the same as it was in the Buddha's time.

"The pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the Self to the feeling "I am." Among the religious thinkers of the time, and in common usage, the concept "self" entails the notion of "I am". However, following the Buddha, later Upanishads like the Maitri Upanishad write instead that only the defiled individual self, rather than the universal self, thinks "this is I" or "this is mine"." - From Wikipedia "Atman (Hinduism)". Information itself taken from Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press, 1995, page 34.
I don't know what your point here is, but regardless, he rejected a soul and a supreme spirit.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

Ok... I don't know what point you're stressing here.

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

38. "A nihilist" (venayiko). Comy: satta-vinaasako, "destroyer of a being's (personality)"; a denier of individuality.
39. "The annihilation of an existing creature" (sato sattassa ucchedam). Sub-Comy: "One who speaks of doing away with a being that has existence in the ultimate sense (paramatthato), would actually be one who teaches the destruction of a being. But I am speaking of what does not exist in the ultimate sense. I am using that (term 'being') only in the conventional sense as done in common parlance (yathaa loke voharati)."

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile

I don't see how this is relevant. I never called him a Nihilist.

I think would be good if you, for non-Buddhists, explain the difference between Buddha-nature/Tathagata Nature and the soul, and what happens when one reaches Nirvana and what, in effect, anatta entails, and how it is different from both eternalism and annihilationism, and what moves from body to body and how this is different from a soul and a self.
"The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathagatahood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. ...The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]


You're not too clear in what you write, here.

From Wikipedia: "Ishvara is Para Brahman endowed with innumerable auspicious qualities (Kalyana Gunas). Ishvara is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, incorporeal, independent, creator of the world, its active ruler and also the eventual destroyer. He is causeless, eternal and unchangeable — and is yet the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is both immanent (like whiteness in milk) and transcendent (like a watch-maker independent of a watch). He is the subject of worship. He is the basis of morality and giver of the fruits of one's Karma. He rules the world with His Māyā — His divine power.". I believe the closest to the Ishvara of Buddha's day was this, and Ishvara was more an infinite and loving being - probably close to the Abrahamic concept of God.
I see no problem with this.

Brahma is the creator deity. He was popular in the Buddha's time, but he is not a popular deity of worship today. Most Hindus believe Brahma will eventually cease to exist.
I understand the distinction between the two, but they both have the qualities of omnipotent, omniscient, creator Gods.
 
Last edited:

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friends,

Here are few articles on the subject:
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/buddha_on_god.asp
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp
also read the links given below the articles, if you wish.
Personal understanding is that God is or is not is a question and all questions are mind matter and Gautama's way is all about the individual's own understanding/experiencing/transcending. of the very mind itself.
When the mind is transcended all question too are including god's are transcended.

Love & rgds
 
Last edited:

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
You aren't an authority on who properly understands the dharma.
You don't know whether or not I understand the dharma, since you do not know me nor my history. If I do not "properly understand the dharma" as you say, then the same could also be said for you. If not, why would you think you are any different to myself?

My view is actually quite irrelevant when the scripture is so blaringly and blatantly clear on Buddha's position on God. So, you cannot simply call it my view. It's a fact, a fact straight from scripture.
Which was not written down until 500 years after Buddha lived, so there is no way to know if he truly said it, or if it is a fraud. Unfortunately.

Plus, you have once said that you choose to follow both Theravada and Mahayana scriptures, but only Mahayana scriptures that suit you.

I don't know what your point here is,
That atman of today is not the atman of yesteryear.

but regardless, he rejected a soul and a supreme spirit.
According to Lankavatara Sutta, yes. However, did he say that?

Ok... I don't know what point you're stressing here.
Buddha denied that there was a self and that there was not, as saying there is no self is still clinging to a concept of self.

I don't see how this is relevant. I never called him a Nihilist.
I never said you did. It shows that Buddha was not a nihilist or an eternalist, although I do feel as though you do turn Buddhism into a more nihilistic view than what Buddha was after.

I understand the distinction between the two, but they both have the qualities of omnipotent, omniscient, creator Gods.
I've never met nor heard of a Hindu who says that Brahma is omnipotent or omniscient. Brahman yes, but Brahma no.
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
I understand the distinction between the two, but they both have the qualities of omnipotent, omniscient, creator Gods.

Buddha may be athesitc , anti-theistic or whatever , but would it only be futile to see Hindu concepts of Atman/Brahman from the viewpoint of Buddhism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tathagata

Freethinker
You don't know whether or not I understand the dharma, since you do not know me nor my history. If I do not "properly understand the dharma" as you say, then the same could also be said for you. If not, why would you think you are any different to myself?

You misunderstood my words. I didn't say you don't understand the dharma. I said "You aren't an authority on who properly understands the dharma." (Though, it no longer says that, I changed it to make it more clear.)

My point is that you aren't on authority to decide who properly understands Dharma and who does not.


Which was not written down until 500 years after Buddha lived, so there is no way to know if he truly said it, or if it is a fraud. Unfortunately.

The Buddha is defined by the scriptures for they are the only records we have of him. If there was another man who said things contrary to scriptures, he was not the Buddha and I probably could care less about that man.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him "Buddha, as defined by scriptures" to avoid this sort of unproductive dialogue.

Plus, you have once said that you choose to follow both Theravada and Mahayana scriptures, but only Mahayana scriptures that suit you.

No, actually I did not say that (I guarantee you won't find a post of me saying that anywhere). I named Mahayana Sutras that I draw from the most, only because I have been primarily exposed to them. Not that I chose them selectively.


According to Lankavatara Sutta, yes. However, did he say that?

Actually, according to nearly every Buddhist scripture on the matter. You will find that he always denied a soul (and rather angry when people asserted that he did).

From the Tipitaka [Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta]

Sati: "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences."

The Buddha: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."


Buddha denied that there was a self and that there was not, as saying there is no self is still clinging to a concept of self.

I know.


I never said you did. It shows that Buddha was not a nihilist or an eternalist, although I do feel as though you do turn Buddhism into a more nihilistic view than what Buddha was after.

In what way? I don't recall ever indicating that Buddhism is Nihilistic.


I've never met nor heard of a Hindu who says that Brahma is omnipotent or omniscient. Brahman yes, but Brahma no.

I know, but we're talking about Brahma in Buddhism. And in Buddhist scripture in the Kevaddha Sutta it says this:

'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
You misunderstood my words. I didn't say you don't understand the dharma. I said "You aren't an authority on who properly understands the dharma." (Though, it no longer says that, I changed it to make it more clear.)
Apologies, I just noticed it and I was about to remove that part. :D

My point is that you aren't on authority to decide who properly understands Dharma and who does not.
I never said I was. However, that doesn't change my opinion that it's only your opinion. :)

The Buddha is defined by the scriptures for they are the only records we have of him. If there was another man who said things contrary to scriptures, he was not the Buddha and I probably could care less about that man.
That is true, there is nothing on him outside of his scriptures. However, how do we know they are all what he claimed? What if these are not the things he said? Then what? Siddhartha Gautama is no longer the Buddha?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him "Buddha, as defined by scriptures" to avoid this sort of unproductive dialogue.
Sounds good to me.

No, actually I did not say that (I guarantee you won't find a post of me saying that anywhere). I named Mahayana Sutras that I draw from the most, only because I have been primarily exposed to them. Not that I chose them selectively.

This is what gave me that impression:

For one, because I go by the Mahayana Sutras a lot, though not all of them. I particularly go by the Prajnaparamita Sutras and Lankavatara Sutras.

Nope.
Do you consider the bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism to be imbued with godlike qualities? Do you consider their worship to valid?)

I apologise I've misunderstood.

Actually, according to nearly every Buddhist scripture on the matter. You will find that he always denied a soul (and rather angry when people asserted that he did).

From the Tipitaka [Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta]

Sati: "Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences."

The Buddha: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit."
Um, I don't see this as denial of soul. I see this as denial of consciousness transmigrating, which is not the same. Buddha pointed out consciousness is not the self and is dependently originated - unless you use the term consciousness and life-force the same, although I'm not sure about the accuracy about translating viññana as life-force..

In what way? I don't recall ever indicating that Buddhism is Nihilistic.
Honestly, I don't know how to explain it. It just does seem like you make Buddhism somewhat nihilistic, for some reason. :shrug:

I know, but we're talking about Brahma in Buddhism. And in Buddhist scripture in the Kevaddha Sutta it says this:

'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'
[/QUOTE]
True, but we have both established the Brahma of Buddhism is a class of devas.

However, I get the feeling that you do not take this event as a historical one that actually happened, am I correct? Additionally, this Brahma does not seem to fit into the Hindu style of Brahma very well, either, especially my own, but that's not for this thread.
 

Tathagata

Freethinker
Apologies, I just noticed it and I was about to remove that part. :D

No prob. :)

That is true, there is nothing on him outside of his scriptures. However, how do we know they are all what he claimed? What if these are not the things he said? Then what? Siddhartha Gautama is no longer the Buddha?
Well, I equate Siddhartha with the Buddha. So I would also say that if there was a man who spoke contrary to scriptures he is not Siddhartha the Buddha.


This is what gave me that impression:

I apologise I've misunderstood.
Yeah, I can see how you got that from that post. Though, I suppose my approach is twofold. The two Mahayana Sutras that I did list as ones that I primarily draw from are because they are the ones I am primarily exposed to, are in the most accessible and easiest format to read, and many other Sutras are simply hard to find on the net or elsewhere. But, I find that the two Sutras that I have found most accessible are also favorable to me, as opposed to the couple others I briefly browsed.

Um, I don't see this as denial of soul. I see this as denial of consciousness transmigrating, which is not the same. Buddha pointed out consciousness is not the self and is dependently originated - unless you use the term consciousness and life-force the same, although I'm not sure about the accuracy about translating viññana as life-force..
"[Buddha] once said 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities.' ...The Buddha countered all soul-theory and soul-speculation with His Anatta doctrine. Anatta is translated under various labels: No-soul, No-self, egolessness, and soullessness."

What Buddhists Believe - Is there an Eternal Soul? (BuddhaNet)


Honestly, I don't know how to explain it. It just does seem like you make Buddhism somewhat nihilistic, for some reason. :shrug:
Well, this point here I stressed as an interesting assertion made by the Buddha:

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout." -- the Buddha

It does seem that he used a negatory or nihilistic way of affirming a non-nihilistic notion. :p

(You may find it funny that Nietzsche apparently thought Buddhism was too Nihilistic, lol.)


True, but we have both established the Brahma of Buddhism is a class of devas.

However, I get the feeling that you do not take this event as a historical one that actually happened, am I correct?
Well, I find that Buddha sometimes used an ironic approach to make a point.

Additionally, this Brahma does not seem to fit into the Hindu style of Brahma very well, either, especially my own, but that's not for this thread.
As far as I've read from Wiki, Brahma is at least considered the creator of this universe (not every universe), but is a God who gets destroyed by Brahman correct?
 
Last edited:

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Well, I equate Siddhartha with the Buddha. So I would also say that if there was a man who spoke contrary to scriptures he is not Siddhartha the Buddha.
But if Siddhartha the Buddha did not author these sayings and spoke contrary to them, and they were attributed to him falsely (either intentional or unintentional) would he still be the Buddha? Would you put faith in his teachings, or the teachings you know today?

Yeah, I can see how you got that from that post. Though, I suppose my approach is twofold. The two Mahayana Sutras that I did list as ones that I primarily draw from are because they are the ones I am primarily exposed to, are in the most accessible and easiest format to read, and many other Sutras are simply hard to find on the net or elsewhere. But, I find that the two Sutras that I have found most accessible are also favorable to me, as opposed to the couple others I briefly browsed.
Ahh, I see. :) No worries, then. Can you elaborate on the last sentence, though?

"[Buddha] once said 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities.'
What is the term used in the original text here, for separate and self-existing? What did the Buddha mean that their souls are separate and self-existing entities? Self-existing from what? From matter? From mind? From samsara?

The Buddha countered all soul-theory and soul-speculation with His Anatta doctrine. Anatta is translated under various labels: No-soul, No-self, egolessness, and soullessness."
How does anatta fit with Buddha-nature, though, and who goes to Nirvana? I don't like the term of 'no-soul' or 'soullnessness', though. Egolessness seems like a nice term. Soullessness I don't like, and selflessness wouldn't work, although it sounds kind of sweet. :D

Speaking of anatta, what atman was he denying? The Hindu "I am" or the Jain one? Any idea?

Well, this point here I stressed as an interesting assertion made by the Buddha:

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout." -- the Buddha
Would you kindly elaborate upon this more?

It does seem that he used a negatory or nihilistic way of affirming a non-nihilistic notion. :p
:D

(You may find it funny that Nietzsche apparently thought Buddhism was too Nihilistic, lol.)
Hehe, really? I've not really read anything from Nietzsche as I'm not a fan of nihilism. If you've read anything from him, is there anything you would suggest reading?

Well, I find that Buddha sometimes used an ironic approach to make a point.
Agreed. :)

As far as I've read from Wiki, Brahma is at least considered the creator of this universe (not every universe), but is a God who gets destroyed by Brahman correct?
Something like that. It can vary from school to school as Hinduism is a very diverse faith.

From my own, leaning towards Advaita perspective (although I've not totally decided on my philosophy, it leans closest to Dvaitadvaita or Vishishtadvaita, if not Advaita): the gods are just roles, manifestations, personalities, aspects--that are anthromorphised--of the One, who, what is beyond terms, names, or description - it is everything, in the same way everything is seen as empty in Buddhism, everything is the One in my opinion. I'd say it is consciousness, but to a Buddhist it implies viññana, which I don't think is accurate. If I'm correct, the term is turiya/chaturtha, but I don't know for certain if this is the right term. That's cutting my views short though, since it's off topic. :)
 
Last edited:

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Buddha: "The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

A little off topic, but Nietzsche wrote virtually the same thing about the same mistake of western philosophy in Will to Power.


In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things—only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is thought in, foisted on, pushed underneath—as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. Very much later, in a world which was in a thousand ways more enlightened, philosophers, to their great surprise, became aware of the sureness, the subjective certainty, in our handling of the categories of reason: they concluded that these categories could not be derived from anything empirical—for everything empirical plainly contradicted them. Where then do they originate? And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: "We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of in a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!" Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for ex ample. After all, every word we say and every sentence speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom—"Reason" in language—A deceptive old woman! I am afraid we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar.



 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
(You may find it funny that Nietzsche apparently thought Buddhism was too Nihilistic, lol.)
I get the distinct impression that he was only critiquing Buddhism from a second-hand or more popular representation of it rather than examining the writings himself. I suspect his interest in Buddhism was mainly because of Schopenhauer's, but that he never really took the time to read and understand it to see how similar it was to what he was writing about.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Though in defense of those who may lack understanding, everything I know about Buddhism I learned from watching "Dharma and Greg."
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
doppelgänger;2107327 said:
Though in defense of those who may lack understanding, everything I know about Buddhism I learned from watching "Dharma and Greg."
What I am interested in is why, exactly, Buddha's view is more important than yours, Odion's or Tathagata's. (Spoiler: There is a lot more to that statement than the casual reading may understand. I am so very wicked....) :D
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
To the extent that it is (which is in fact not that much), because more people will attempt to reconstitute and emulate it.

Of course, at least by the current understanding of the Pali Canon, that view emphasizes the need to be one's own reference, so there is a bit of inherent contradiction in making too big a point of knowing what Siddhartha Buddha said. As a matter of fact, such respected Buddhist leaders as Bodhidharma basically chose not to care too much.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
What I am interested in is why, exactly, Buddha's view is more important than yours, Odion's or Tathagata's.

Good point! Each individual must find their own enlightenment that fits their worldview.

I actually tend towards Hinduism more than Buddhism in my own personal research because I find the former to be traditionally more open to interpretation. Buddhism suggests a more "straight and narrow" approach whereas I find the mystical depth of Hinduism intoxicating, and the ritual traditions highly artistic and subject to creative personalization.

But then, this is a Westerner's approach to these traditions and may be somewhere in left field (hehe).

How does this fit the OP? Hinduism can be interpreted in both atheistic (Gods and Self as illusions that ripple from Brahman--the Ultimate Reality) or theistic. Buddhism can as well, though Tathagata's point is very well taken when it comes to his namesake's view of God and Self.

It's all perspective.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
What I am interested in is why, exactly, Buddha's view is more important than yours, Odion's or Tathagata's. (Spoiler: There is a lot more to that statement than the casual reading my understand. I am so very wicked....) :D
To them, there's is the only important one.
Though mine is by far the best of the aforementioned.*




*This claim was independently verified in a J.D. Power satisfaction survey in 2009, (MOE +- 100%)
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
The Buddha's Direct Words from Scripture on the Subject of God

Buddha:
"Others think that God is free creator of all things; clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha
: "All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]



Buddha:
"In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. ...But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "
The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being's act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. "When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." [Tittha Sutta]

Buddha:
"Others see the eternally of things in the conception of Nirvana as the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; and some, who are especially silly, declare that there are two primary things, a primary substance and a primary soul, that react differently upon each other and thus produce all things from the transformations of qualities; some think that the world is born of action and interaction and that no other cause is necessary;" [Lankavatara Sutra]


Buddha's Discourse On God, the Absolute, the First Cause, and the Nature of Reality

From the Culla Vagga of the Tipitika:

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.


"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.


"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?


(Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul [like a Holy Spirit I guess] because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul [atman].)


"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?


"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.


"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

^^



[Culla Vagga 6:2]





Buddhism is more against the notion of "Creator God" and "Seperate Self/Soul" ...I have highlighted my points on the post affirming the same.

Now idea of self is very clearly put forth Mahaparinirvana Sutra

"Bhiksus, you should know that the heretics have said that the self is like the insect who eats wood, mates, and makes offspring merely. This is why the Tathagata proclaims that in the Buddha-dharma there is no self. It is for the sake of taming sentient beings, knowing the time, and that such selflessness has been the cause and condition that he also says that there is a self. He is like that physician who well knew the elixirs that were medicinal and not medicinal. It is not like that self the ordinary man reckons to be his own or the ordinary man who meets someone and reckons that they have a self. Some have said that it is as large as the thumb and finger, some that it is like the mustard seed, some that it is like a grain a dust. The Tathagata says that the self is not like any of these. This is why he says that things (dharmas) are selfless. Really it is not that there is no self. What is the self? If something is the true, the real, the constant, the master, the foundation with a nature that is unchanging, this is called the self. Just as that great doctor well understand the medicinal elixir, the Tathagata is also so. For the sake of sentient beings, in the Dharmas that he speaks there really is a self. You and the four assembles must thus cultivate the Dharma."



My point is one must come with correct definition of "God /Soul " (certain traditions do have non-creationist god ),to say that whether Buddhism is atheistic/thesitic.To say that atheistic view alone is correct only narrows down scope of the religion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top