• 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?

Was Buddha a Theist?


  • Total voters
    25

siti

Well-Known Member
But any ignorant person may/could become Atheist
Oh! thank you very much!

can an ignorant person attain nirvana/salvation, please?
Of course you can - welcome!

Oh - I see - that was a question rather than a request...well here'e the thing - one cannot attain nirvana as long as one is attached to 'knowledge', still less if one remains attached to 'beliefs'...knowledge and belief become irrelevant with enlightenment...I believe. :)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Please correct me if I am wrong... anyone...

Nirvana is the culmination of a spiritual path that ends the cycle of life-suffering-death-rebirth? When a person reaches this summit of spiritual enlightenment their mortal physical life ends regardless of their physical condition?

I understand that Buddhists may differ on whether this Nirvana is literal or firgurative.

The question is, what did Buddha Gautama say about it? Is it possible to tell whether or not he expected a person's mortal life to end literally or figuratively?

Nibbana

There is that, which is unborn, uncreated, unformed, unconditioned and unconstructed!
If, Bhikkhus, there was not this unborn, uncreated, unformed and unconstructed,

no escape from what is born, created, formed and constructed could ever be realized...
But since there indeed exists that, which is utterly unborn, uncreated, unformed and
unconstructed, the escape from this born, created, formed and constructed state can
therefore indeed be realized, explained and made known!

...
Hope that helps.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I was meditating on the noble eightfold path.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

The whole business of peoples endlessly debating theistic (or non-theistic) concepts appears discouraged by Buddha who proposed a very practical path towards liberation. My view of Buddha is very Theistic, but to criticise a fellow wanderer on ther spiritual path whose theism is very different would be contrary to Buddha's path to enlightenment. Abstaining from such criticism of another may entail right view, right speech, right conduct and right intention.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
@adrian009 's poll asked "was Buddha a theist?"...and obviously, it seems to me, the answer must depend in part on what one means by "theist"...I don't mean to engage in an interminable argument about definitions, but I think (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) the teachings of Buddha make a creator God irrelevant (at least to the philosophy and practice of Buddhism) - as per the reasoning in the parable of the arrow that is referenced in the OP. If a creator God is irrelevant, in what sense could any belief in deity that Buddha may have entertained be described as 'theism'? Surely 'creatorship' is the defining attribute of the theistic deity? So if Buddha was a theist, he wasn't a very theistic one IMO. And he certainly wasn't a deist either because the 'creatorship' argument applies even more strongly in that case. Pantheist perhaps? Certainly non-theistic (at least in some respects) IMO - and for most theists - it seems to me - if you are non-theistic in some respects you are not a theist. I think I should vote 'no' - but then again...can I vote twice? Or is that me being an "endless equivocator" like the feeble-minded teachers that Buddha condemned in the Brahmajala Sutta that @paarsurrey mentioned earlier? IDK!!!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nibbana

There is that, which is unborn, uncreated, unformed, unconditioned and unconstructed!
If, Bhikkhus, there was not this unborn, uncreated, unformed and unconstructed,

no escape from what is born, created, formed and constructed could ever be realized...
But since there indeed exists that, which is utterly unborn, uncreated, unformed and
unconstructed, the escape from this born, created, formed and constructed state can
therefore indeed be realized, explained and made known!

...
Hope that helps.
The Udana, translated from the Pali?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I was meditating on the noble eightfold path.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

The whole business of peoples endlessly debating theistic (or non-theistic) concepts appears discouraged by Buddha who proposed a very practical path towards liberation. My view of Buddha is very Theistic, but to criticise a fellow wanderer on ther spiritual path whose theism is very different would be contrary to Buddha's path to enlightenment. Abstaining from such criticism of another may entail right view, right speech, right conduct and right intention.
Nice! But wouldn't Buddha also be the first to say that you should not accept this view as truth just because Buddha said it? Enigmatic - this enlightenment thing - isn't it?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
‘God’ is a mere word, loaded with diverse interpretations, which are all mental.

Stripping away of all those ideas and directly experiencing the reality as unborn, uncreated, unformed that allows discernment of freedom is Good.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Stripping away of all those ideas and directly experiencing the reality as unborn, uncreated, unformed that allows discernment of freedom is Good.
How does negating ideas by sticking an un- in front of the words that symbolize them (for example) allow discernment of anything? Is this not just defining the ultimate in terms of what it is not? And if it is "reality...uncreated" why can that not simply be the uncreated universe? How would that be "theism"? How, indeed, would it not be "atheism"?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
@adrian009 's poll asked "was Buddha a theist?"...and obviously, it seems to me, the answer must depend in part on what one means by "theist"...I don't mean to engage in an interminable argument about definitions, but I think (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) the teachings of Buddha make a creator God irrelevant (at least to the philosophy and practice of Buddhism) - as per the reasoning in the parable of the arrow that is referenced in the OP. If a creator God is irrelevant, in what sense could any belief in deity that Buddha may have entertained be described as 'theism'? Surely 'creatorship' is the defining attribute of the theistic deity? So if Buddha was a theist, he wasn't a very theistic one IMO. And he certainly wasn't a deist either because the 'creatorship' argument applies even more strongly in that case. Pantheist perhaps? Certainly non-theistic (at least in some respects) IMO - and for most theists - it seems to me - if you are non-theistic in some respects you are not a theist. I think I should vote 'no' - but then again...can I vote twice? Or is that me being an "endless equivocator" like the feeble-minded teachers that Buddha condemned in the Brahmajala Sutta that @paarsurrey mentioned earlier? IDK!!!

The manner in which you view the Buddha's Teachings in regards Theism is popular amongst Westerners who have become Buddhists. The reality of how Buddhism is practiced in non-Western countries appears to embrace a diversity of theistic ideologies. The co-existence between Shintoism and Buddhism in Japan is a good example. A Buddhist from Cambobia has also contributed to this thread and appears theistic.

Would it be more correct to say that Buddha remained 'undeclared' in regard Theism? He did not express that Theism was 'irrelevant', simply that under some circumstances there are more pressing issues. As apparent in this thread there even appears to be references within Buddhist Canon that support Theism.

If we consider the divisive and futile nature of some theistic discourses and debates, it is not hard to imagine why Buddha would have completely avoided and discouraged such discussion. I believe with following the eightfold path and moving closer to Nirvana, the existence of God or gods becomes clear and needs no speculation. To say more would be contrary to Buddha's Teachings.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
How does negating ideas by sticking an un- in front of the words that symbolize them (for example) allow discernment of anything? Is this not just defining the ultimate in terms of what it is not? And if it is "reality...uncreated" why can that not simply be the uncreated universe? How would that be "theism"? How, indeed, would it not be "atheism"?

Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, emphasise correct view/knowledge. If all that is, is anatta (non self) and anitya (temporary), then of what use is any practice? To this Buddha taught of That which is uncreated, unborn, unformed and that allows discernment of freedom.

Uncreated, unborn, unformed cannot be ‘anitya’ (temporary). So, ‘anitya’ is not the final teaching of Buddha. It is important to hold right view and then practice.

I posted a video of monks replying to this point.

To what extent was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, emphasises correct view. If all that is a anatta (non self) and anitya (temporary), then of what use is any practice? To this Buddha taught of that which is uncreated, unborn, unformed that allows discernment of freedom.

Uncreated, unborn, unformed cannot be ‘anitya’ (temporary). So, ‘anitya’ is not the final teaching of Buddha. It is important to hold right view and practice.

I posted a video of monks replying to this point.

To what extent was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?
So definitely not theism then.

One of them says that Buddhism has an "immaterial, impersonal, non-anthropomorphic god that can sometimes be equated with the 'dharma' or with the...natural law that governs the entire universe"

He says that Buddhism is "a-theistic" not "athe-istic" - IOW not theism but not atheism either...the other monk then says "non-theism".
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
A Buddhist from Cambobia has also contributed to this thread and appears theistic.

Would it be more correct to say that Buddha remained 'undeclared' in regard Theism? He did not express that Theism was 'irrelevant', simply that under some circumstances there are more pressing issues. As apparent in this thread there even appears to be references within Buddhist Canon that support Theism.

If we consider the divisive and futile nature of some theistic discourses and debates, it is not hard to imagine why Buddha would have completely avoided and discouraged such discussion. I believe with following the eightfold path and moving closer to Nirvana, the existence of God or gods becomes clear and needs no speculation. To say more would be contrary to Buddha's Teachings.

If by theism is meant devotion to a Lord separate from oneself, then that concept is not there in most part of Hinduism and in Buddhism. But some people recognise that seeking the reality is what some others will term as seeking god.

 

siti

Well-Known Member
To say more would be contrary to Buddha's Teachings.
You are a tricky dicky aren't you Adrian! Anyway, just 'cos you don't want to say more doesn't mean I shouldn't...

I think what Buddha actually says is there are always more pressing issues than theological debates. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him and he would have been the first to assert my right to inquire freely into the matter for myself:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." ...


"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Kalama Sutta

He was not averse to good discussion himself by all accounts. And what he also actually (or at least reportedly) said is that unless and until we have reached nirvana, what we believe about the existence or non-existence of deities - like other philosophical questions like whether the world is finite or infinite - makes little difference because our suffering remains and in respect of 'enlightenment' the question is moot - there is no definitive answer that makes any difference in respect of our liberation...and once we have reached nirvana - well then I suppose we'll know 'it' as it really is - gods or no gods - and the question simply evaporates with every other impermanent aspect of our reality. Hence, there is really no point talking about it at all - which it seems for the most part he didn't.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You are a tricky dicky aren't you Adrian! Anyway, just 'cos you don't want to say more doesn't mean I shouldn't...

I think what Buddha actually says is there are always more pressing issues than theological debates. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him and he would have been the first to assert my right to inquire freely into the matter for myself:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." ...


"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Kalama Sutta

He was not averse to good discussion himself by all accounts. And what he also actually (or at least reportedly) said is that unless and until we have reached nirvana, what we believe about the existence or non-existence of deities - like other philosophical questions like whether the world is finite or infinite - makes little difference because our suffering remains and in respect of 'enlightenment' the question is moot - there is no definitive answer that makes any difference in respect of our liberation...and once we have reached nirvana - well then I suppose we'll know 'it' as it really is - gods or no gods - and the question simply evaporates with every other impermanent aspect of our reality. Hence, there is really no point talking about it at all - which it seems for the most part he didn't.

When we walk through the forest we see trees but when we climb the mountain we see the majestic panaroma of the forest and surrounding regions. I think Buddha showed us the path to the top of the mountain. When we both arrive we will see clearly. There will be no doubts or fears, only peace, compassion and love. In such a state neither of us will desire to argue.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
When we walk through the forest we see trees but when we climb the mountain we see the majestic panaroma of the forest and surrounding regions. I think Buddha showed us the path to the top of the mountain. When we both arrive we will see clearly. There will be no doubts or fears, only peace, compassion and love. In such a state neither of us will desire to argue.
Broccoli - when I look down on a forest from a high mountain - I see broccoli.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member

Buddha is the only prophet who said, I do not care to know your various theories about God. What is the use of discussing all the subtle doctrines about the soul? Do good and be good. ~ Swami Vivekananda


I am not sure that Buddha would have been a lesser or greater person if he was a theist or atheist or agnostic.

He was good for the sake of good, not because he sought rewards in paradise or the blessings of a personal God.
He perhaps is the only spiritual master in history who promoted good for the sake of good without any underlying motives.

Can we be as strong and brave as that , to be totally independent without any crutches to lean upon !

It is obviously hard and painful, and many will give up in the first attempt.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Who cares as long as the teachings actually work to bring peacefulness? Maybe Buddha said it or maybe he did not.

Do the teachings work in real life situations is the question I would be asking. Is there any benefit to all people in the message? Or is it only meant for an elite group which involves us and them?

I wouldn't be too concerned whether or not the Buddha was into gods or not as much as whether or not his message for living this real life here and now is beneficial to all or any.
 
Top