-
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!
To what extent was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
I think Buddha emphasized on the existence of divine qualities and attributes, and presenting Himself as One who posses such attributes, rather then speaking of someone else in the sky.
There is only one 'Source' the Brahman. The rest is the manifestation of shunyata.
Buddhism to me seems practical. Speculation is not practical.
Why Speculation Is a Waste of Time — Gustavo Razzetti
That’s the paradox of speculation — our desire to find certainty creates more uncertainty and worry.
Buddha did not believe in the existence of an omni-God. There were many spiritual entities, some with the power of creating entire universes, but they did not have limitless power, wisdom or knowledge and in fact all of them were mortal (i.e. subject to eventual death).
Samana Johann
Restricted by request
Maybe just a 'source'-"problem... "who speculates..."
Without human speculation; 'If the 'Source' exists, any human description of the 'Source' is speculation, and that is why 'Shunyata Do' is the 'Way of Nothingness.' The universal nature of the 'Source' is the best fallible humans can do to believe, and acknowledge that many diverse conflicting views and beliefs are manifestations of the cultural fallible human perspective.
It is a fallible human problem whether the 'Source' exists or not. The first teaching of Buddha that I learned is; 'Nothing is necessary.'
Samana Johann
Restricted by request
Sure, as long as their refrigerators are not empty of 'source'.
Better if familar of what "is" the all, and why Brahman Dragon on and on "is" put to grief. But he may do as he feels, or "is" fit.
The question is flawed since he is neither so that makes him an other than. If that is true, that would make him an unusual.
To give an anaology Buddha sees the tree of life direct. There are three people around him one is the "believer" and they say "I believe in the tree of life and it is x " Buddha says "no breathe".
The second person says "i do not believe in the tree of life thus it's y"Buddha says "that's even more incorrect than the believer breathe".
The third person seeing the error of the first two say "I am agnostic as to whether the tree of life exists thus it's z". Buddha says no you have the same issues as the other two breathe"
All three percieve they understand him, only he understands them.
In the Bible it says " I am in this world I am not of this world" . Is that Buddha or is that Christ? Or is that question flawed? Breathe.
danieldemol said:
The evidence for Buddha's existence is significant. Within one generation of his death. There was a Buddhist conference with family members, and a compilation of his writings.
From: https://www.google.com/search?ei=AE......0i71j0i131j35i39j0i67j0i20i263.JHLvJz9pqp8
According to the scriptures of all Buddhist schools, the first Buddhist Council was held soon after the death of the Buddha, dated by the majority of recent scholars around 400 BCE, under the patronage of the king Ajatashatru with the monk Mahakasyapa presiding, at Sattapanni caves Rajgriha (now Rajgir)
Last edited:
'Familiar? How egocentric. You are presenting a personal anthropomorphic view of the 'Source' some call 'Brahman,' which is problematic at best.
Do you consider yourself familiar with the Brahman?
Last edited:
That sounded atheist to me, so I voted no.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Hindus do not use the word 'upāsikā', the common word is 'Sādhvi'. However, 'Sādhu' means exactly the same in Sanskrit as in Pali.
That is not originally your title. It belonged to someone else. Since then, many have used it.
Last edited:
From the biased perspective of the belief in an anthropomorphic God.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
HelloIf we can locate cousin Blathering, we can hold a family reunion.
My own research tells me that Buddha definitely taught about the same God that Christ, Moses and Muhammad taught. There is a way to definitely confirm it and I have done so to my satisfaction.
The obstacle to knowing the truth i believe is when the lamp not the light becomes the central focus of worship. For instance some worship Krishna, others Buddha or Jesus and it is this attachment to the Person that prevents them from seeing that the exact same light of truth has appeared in all the other Educators not just the particular One each worships.
In that sense Christ and Muhammad were all Buddha’s too as was Buddha also a Jesus. But worshippers of names fail to see the light of truth shines in all the Great Educators so just worship the lamp and not the light otherwise they would never have failed to accept all the Great Educators that came after Buddha.
It’s easy to identify a real Buddha by looking at the light instead of clinging to the name and lamp.
And there have been many Buddha’s that have appeared since Gautama Who confirm there is a God and the light of truth that shone in Jesus or Moses was the exact same light of truth which shone in Buddha. Outwardly They had distinct personalities and brought teachings for that age and people. But inwardly They all championed the same Cause of Truth, honesty, virtues and good character.
Yet each believer worships it’s own ‘lamp’ (personality) rather than the light so they cannot see that all the other Educators were all Buddha’s too because of attachment to names.
But if one were able to be detached from the lamp and only worship the light within then it’s very easy to accept all the Great Educators.
We could all very easily accept the Founder of each other’s religion if all we clung to was the inner spiritual truths and not the lamp. I accept all the Great Teachers as one and equal without distinction. I love the teachings of Buddha the Dhammapada, the Bible, the Gita, the Quran because they all teach truth.why should I deprive myself of all the beautiful truths They teach by just clinging to the outward name and lamp of one of Them?
Even that being said there are still other ways to verify Buddha taught about God but that for another time perhaps.
The obstacle to knowing the truth i believe is when the lamp not the light becomes the central focus of worship. For instance some worship Krishna, others Buddha or Jesus and it is this attachment to the Person that prevents them from seeing that the exact same light of truth has appeared in all the other Educators not just the particular One each worships.
In that sense Christ and Muhammad were all Buddha’s too as was Buddha also a Jesus. But worshippers of names fail to see the light of truth shines in all the Great Educators so just worship the lamp and not the light otherwise they would never have failed to accept all the Great Educators that came after Buddha.
It’s easy to identify a real Buddha by looking at the light instead of clinging to the name and lamp.
And there have been many Buddha’s that have appeared since Gautama Who confirm there is a God and the light of truth that shone in Jesus or Moses was the exact same light of truth which shone in Buddha. Outwardly They had distinct personalities and brought teachings for that age and people. But inwardly They all championed the same Cause of Truth, honesty, virtues and good character.
Yet each believer worships it’s own ‘lamp’ (personality) rather than the light so they cannot see that all the other Educators were all Buddha’s too because of attachment to names.
But if one were able to be detached from the lamp and only worship the light within then it’s very easy to accept all the Great Educators.
We could all very easily accept the Founder of each other’s religion if all we clung to was the inner spiritual truths and not the lamp. I accept all the Great Teachers as one and equal without distinction. I love the teachings of Buddha the Dhammapada, the Bible, the Gita, the Quran because they all teach truth.why should I deprive myself of all the beautiful truths They teach by just clinging to the outward name and lamp of one of Them?
Even that being said there are still other ways to verify Buddha taught about God but that for another time perhaps.
I'm more of a panentheist, but this is Buddha talking a thousand years ago about the gods inquiring of him for wisdom. This is where atheism and monotheism overlap, so you could go either way I suppose.
Last edited: