Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[apophenia]

There isn't much difference between Brahman and Buddha-Nature...also, Buddha is an Avatar of Lord Vishnu anyway,

To clear that up for you - that verse was added to Srimad Bhagavatam long after Gautama's time to begin the process of subverting buddhism and making it hinduism.

Look at the dates. Vaishnavas often claim that Srimad Bhagavatam is 5000 years old. So how does a text which is 5000 years old have references to someone who lived 2500 years ago ? Obviously it can't. Those references to Gautama being an expansion of Vishnu are utterly bogus edits made by overly zealous hindus.

You can see that same kind of stunt being pulled here, as I referred to just a moment ago.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Different perspective, similar outcome.

 

[Vinayaka]

Really ?

My point was that this goes to cementing the syncretic remaking of buddhism into hinduism to appease the theists.

That's what syncretics do. Mix and match mix and match. Why not just show mutual respect without all the mix? I respect Buddhists. Buddhists and Hindu are cousins in dharma. Doesn't mean they should build some kind of new house and all move in together.

 

[ratikala]

That's what syncretics do. Mix and match mix and match. Why not just show mutual respect without all the mix? I respect Buddhists. Buddhists and Hindu are cousins in dharma. Doesn't mean they should build some kind of new house and all move in together.

it is perfectly possible to realise the same truth revealed symultaniously in two places with out being syncretic .

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

Vaishnav sects are theistic and do not accept Buddha's teaching as a ultimate realization and Buddha does not accept any dualistic notion having a god much less a creator God.Even the proposed similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are just paper boats,they both differ very vastly in their practices.


Syncretism works well in philosophical debates and discussions,but if you are intent on treading the path ,there are innumerable differences.If you are looking for some common ground -you will see that all the dharmic religions have similar lifestyle choices and ethical notions like compassion, self-abnegation etc.

That's what syncretics do. Mix and match mix and match. Why not just show mutual respect without all the mix? I respect Buddhists. Buddhists and Hindu are cousins in dharma. Doesn't mean they should build some kind of new house and all move in together.

 

[apophenia]

That's what syncretics do. Mix and match mix and match. Why not just show mutual respect without all the mix? I respect Buddhists. Buddhists and Hindu are cousins in dharma. Doesn't mean they should build some kind of new house and all move in together.

I'm glad you clarified that Vinayaka. Just for one disorienting moment I thought you were fruballing me for my syncretism

I need a whole new bunch of emoticons. Dammit, let's just do away with language and use a set of emoticons which are all happy happy joy joy. Then the world would be a peaceful and enjoyable supermarket... I mean, planet.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

it is perfectly possible to realise the same truth revealed symultaniously in two places with out being syncretic .

Totally true - for me at least, anyway.
The Tao Teh Ching is a treatise on Advaita Vedanta.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why do two when one will do?

 

[apophenia]

Why do two when one will do?

Sometimes I only do a half.

Sometimes I do nothing whatsoever.

"I repeat myself when under stress... I repeat myself when under stress... I repeat myself ..."
- King Crimson

 

[Vinayaka]

One life, one wife.

One path. Any more would make me more confused than I already is.

I know some really nice Buddhists, who once a month, or thereabouts, feed the Hindu monks of a Hindu monastery. Why? Simply because there are no Buddhist monks around. They just do it, the monks are grateful, and I highly doubt if they stick around to discuss philosophy afterwards.

 

[apophenia]

One life, one wife.

One path. Any more would make me more confused than I already is.

I know some really nice Buddhists, who once a month, or thereabouts, feed the Hindu monks of a Hindu monastery. Why? Simply because there are no Buddhist monks around. They just do it, the monks are grateful, and I highly doubt if they stick around to discuss philosophy afterwards.

This is the point. Karate and Tae Kwan Do are both martial arts. But when you go to a karate class, you go to study that specific discipline. If the sensei was syncretic he would just teach fighting. Which is fine, unless you want to study the body of work called karate. And there are good reasons to maintain specific disciplines. One of them is discipline itself. Too often syncretism means a lazy mind and no commitment to a discipline. "Yeah, but I do it my way". Well good for you. But please don't disturb the karate class by demanding the sensei include jiu jitsu. This is not a criticism of jiu jitsu. It is the maintenance of discipline beyond the adolescent attitude of "but I want to learn it this way ..."

Similarly, when I go to an Iyengar yoga class, it is to study and practice according to the method of Mr Iyengar. That method would simply disappear if the class became 'whatever'. And that would be a great shame, and a loss of something valuable. I've been to 'whatever' yoga classes. They are, you know, whatever ...

 

[punkdbass]

Question to apophenia or other Buddhists in this thread:

Hinduism seems to have a concept often referred to as "Avatars" which are basically human beings who are "God-Incarnate," i.e. human beings who have obtained enlightenment, full self-Realization, union with the Divine. Examples would be people like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, great hindu yogis, etc. My question is: what meaning or significance, if any, do such "Avatars" have from the perspective of a buddhist? What do they mean to a Buddhist? I feel like this is a question, if answered, that could better help me understand the Buddhist position on God.

 

[crossfire]

***Mod Post***

Thread moved to the Dharmic DIR.​

I would respectfully request that this thread gets moved back to the Buddhism DIR. When it is here, those who are not Buddhists can feel justified in dictating to Buddhists exactly what Buddhists [satire]actually[/satire] believe, without having to provide any sort of Buddhist texts to support it.

Thank you.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

I would respectfully request that this thread gets moved back to the Buddhism DIR. When it is here, those who are not Buddhists can feel justified in dictating to Buddhists exactly what Buddhists [satire]actually[/satire] believe, without having to provide any sort of Buddhist texts to support it.

Thank you.

Mods having a tough time in this thread.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

Okay,I see that some Hindus or some-else want to have a discussion regarding god of Buddhism.Buddhist of course have any reason to support or refute that claim.But are they in denial?(Sorry,my english is very poor,but this is best I can come up with)

I have created a thread for it:


http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-did-buddha-misunderstand-hindu-brahman.html


Lets give mods some rest

 

[crossfire]

Yeah, tough crowd, LOL

Alternate answer - "I can see why Buddhism started out in India. The whole god thing was so ridiculously out of hand"

Well, Buddhism was a counter-cultural movement that rejected the whole caste system, rejected Hindu ritual, rejected the Vedas, rejected Atman and Brahman, (pardon if I didn't get the spelling correct,) didn't teach or even encourage mantras, and even ordained women!

 

[crossfire]

Well, Buddhism was a counter-cultural movement that rejected the whole caste system, rejected Hindu ritual, rejected the Vedas, rejected Atman and Brahman, (pardon if I didn't get the spelling correct,) didn't teach or even encourage mantras, and even ordained women!

Oh, I would also like to add: modern Hinduism has adopted and incorporated many more Shramanic philosophies (of which Buddhism a part) than Vedic philosophies being adopted by Buddhism.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji :namaste

One life, one wife.

One path. Any more would make me more confused than I already is.

you do not have to walk two paths to realise that they both have the same the same outcome .

I know some really nice Buddhists, who once a month, or thereabouts, feed the Hindu monks of a Hindu monastery. Why? Simply because there are no Buddhist monks around. They just do it, the monks are grateful, and I highly doubt if they stick around to discuss philosophy afterwards.

which is re assuring , neither I imagine do they feel the need to tell the other that their practice or beleif structure is defective , they simply respect another for the sincerity of their practice .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram rohit ji :namaste

Vaishnav sects are theistic and do not accept Buddha's teaching as a ultimate realization and Buddha does not accept any dualistic notion having a god much less a creator God.Even the proposed similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are just paper boats,they both differ very vastly in their practices.

most vaisnava sects do not study the teachings if lord buddha in any depth and have no opinion on his teachings .

also , practices and realization are two different things .

 

[apophenia]

you do not have to walk two paths to realise that they both have the same the same outcome .

Why not ?

You say that these paths have the same outcome. But most buddhists (practicing buddhists, not pseudo-intellectual web forum dilettantes such as we see so many of here) would disagree.

You and I have not had the same outcome, as far as I can tell. For me, the outcome was, among other things, that all those ideas of 'god' and other examples of metaphysical imagination were seen to be neurosis and, fortunately, as unnecessary as they are imaginary.