Buddha believed in the Creator God

[atanu]

You keep avoiding the question, where in Buddhist scripture did the Buddha proclaim belief in a Creator God?
Do not evade the question, simply provide the passage or concede..

Tathagata

All is views. BrahmajAla sutra expounds 62 views. One of them is a view of mahabrahmA. It is not that the view of creator is not explained by Buddha but according to Buddha, as recorded in BrahmajAla sutra, the mahabrahmA also is bound -- a conditioned being, having arrived into being due to exhaustion of his earlier earned merits.

 

[atanu]

Tathagata
All is views. BrahmajAla sutra expounds 62 views. One of them is a view of mahabrahmA. It is not that the view of creator is not explained by Buddha but according to Buddha, as recorded in BrahmajAla sutra, the mahabrahmA also is bound -- a conditioned being, having arrived into being due to exhaustion of his earlier earned merits.

Eventually, despite all protests of those who try to divide and rule:

Brahman:

In the highest golden sheath is Brahman,
stainless, without parts;
Pure is it, the light of lights.
This is what the knowers of the Self know.
The sun shines not there,
nor the moon and stars,
these lightnings shine not,
where then could this fire be?
His shining illumines all this world.
Brahman, verily, is this Deathless.

—Mundaka Upanishad​

Emptiness:

Where water, earth, heat
and wind find no footing,
there no stars gleam,
no sun is made visible,
there shines no moon,
there the darkness is not found;
When the sage, the brahmin,
himself in wisdom knows this place
he is freed from the form
and formless realms,
from happiness and suffering.

the Udana​

 

[paarsurrey]

You keep avoiding the question, where in Buddhist scripture did the Buddha proclaim belief in a Creator God?

Do not evade the question, simply provide the passage or concede.
.
.

I don't necessarily need to quote any Sutta for following reasons:

1. Suttas were not written by Buddha. So why insist on quoting them?

2. They are said to consist on 40/43 volumes; not possible to go through them all for an ordinary man.

3. Buddha himself spoke that scriptures and the monks should not be relied upon with blind faith; I quote from Kalama Sutta in this connection:

“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."”

4. I understand that some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Some have has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.

5. I don’t say they are false and should be rejected; they might contain diluted teachings of Buddha; and affected by the influence of Nāstika schools of philosophies during the times between Buddha and when the scriptures were compiled/written down.

A parallel in this regard could be had from what happened to the teachings of Jesus after when he migrated from Judea after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and came to India.

 

[ratikala]

try reading and reflecting on this portion of the kalama sutta , be interesting to see what you make of it ??? the whole sutta is on post 31-32 post entitled buddha spoke vhemently against scepticisum and agnosticism
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


The Four Solaces

17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."

"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, four solaces are found.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
[/FONT]
:namaste

 

[atanu]

I don't necessarily need to quote any Sutta for following reasons:
1. Suttas were not written by Buddha. So why insist on quoting them?
2. They are said to consist on 40/43 volumes; not possible to go through them all for an ordinary man.
3. Buddha himself spoke that scriptures and the monks should not be relied upon with blind faith; I quote from Kalama Sutta in this connection:
“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another's seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."”
4. I understand that some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Some have has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha.
5. I don’t say they are false and should be rejected; they might contain diluted teachings of Buddha; and affected by the influence of Nāstika schools of philosophies during the times between Buddha and when the scriptures were compiled/written down.
A parallel in this regard could be had from what happened to the teachings of Jesus after when he migrated from Judea after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and came to India.

Paarsurrey

Buddha did teach, I believe, of an imperishable eternal unborn aspect whose nature is to enable discernment. It is all pervading and the substratum of every being and therefore is not separate from anything or any being. But Buddha did not teach that such an unborn has any intention to create etc.

In short, I have not seen any teaching of Buddha glorifying the Creator God (however I am willing to change my view if I see any such teaching).

OTOH, Buddha himself was called Lord-Bhagava-possessor of six opulences -- a term also used for Shiva and Vishna by Hindus) by his followers.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

Paarsurrey

Buddha did teach, I believe, of an imperishable eternal unborn aspect whose nature is to enable discernment. It is all pervading and the substratum of every being and therefore is not separate from anything or any being. But Buddha did not teach that such an unborn has any intention to create etc.

In short, I have not seen any teaching of Buddha glorifying the Creator God (however I am willing to change my view if I see any such teaching).

OTOH, Buddha himself was called Lord-Bhagava-possessor of six opulences -- a term also used for Shiva and Vishna by Hindus) by his followers.

this is my opinion only but , I beleive buddha simply taught the method of obtaining enlightenment , discussing nothing past that point , knowing that upon the realisation of the true nature of phenomena , that we would then realise god , and that to teach the understanding or glorification of god to an un purified mind was in it self a pointless excercise .

my felling is that whilst buddha did not directly teach on the subject of god neither did he deny the existance of god .

thus leading us to understanding rather than teaching on the knowledge or fruit of that meditation .

how can the truth which is in expressable be taught and heard ?it is through its atributes that it is taught and heard .......madhyamika vitti ..P.264 ..

 

[atanu]

dear prabhu ji ,

this is my opinion only but , I beleive buddha simply taught the method of obtaining enlightenment , discussing nothing past that point , knowing that upon the realisation of the true nature of phenomena , that we would then realise god , and that to teach the understanding or glorification of god to an un purified mind was in it self a pointless excercise .

Hello.

You are mostly correct but in Udana 8.1 to 8.4 Buddha has described the nature of Nibbana that underlies the phenomena. Further, the Mahayana school has teaching of Buddha dhatu.

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

Hello.

You are mostly correct but in Udana 8.1 to 8.4 Buddha has described the nature of Nibbana that underlies the phenomena. Further, the Mahayana school has teaching of Buddha dhatu.

allso in thr dhammapada there is mention of realms of the gods ....v177 ..

"verily the miserly do not go to the world of the gods , fools indeed do not praise giving .but the wise man rejoicing in charity becomes (on that account) happy in the other world ."

there are then levels of dhatu , realms , abodes or heavens . true this is discussed more in mahayana scriptures .
there is accknowldgement of gods in the dhammapada , and each god having its own function must in some sence be a creator , so as to the question of a supreme god , a supreme creator ?

again it is only my personal beleif but just because buddha did not discuss some thing it does not mean that it didnot exist , buddha simply taught the path to realisation .

"in this very life he is allayed , becomes cool , he abides in the experience of bliss within a self that has become brahma."....maijhima nikaya 1.344

thus the buddha states that it is possible to atain nirvana in this very life even whilst still in an embodied condition , but upon death that being does not return .it may then reside in one of many realms or heavens .whereby he might then de fit to realise god .

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddhist Emperor Ashoka’s title “Beloved one of Gods”.

Emperor Ashoka’s given name was Asoka but he assumed the title Devanampiya Piyadasi which means "Beloved-of-the-Gods, He Who Looks on with Affection."
Ashoka (ca. 304–232 BC) - also known as Ashoka the Great was an Indian Emperor of the Maurya Dynasty.

His period was prior to the canonization of Buddhist scriptures; and he was a fervent follower of Buddha; under his rule Buddha’s teachings spread far and wide.

His title shows us that he was a Theist; and this clearly hints that the earlier followers of Buddha were believers of Theists; they were not Atheists or Agnostics.

 

[paarsurrey]

dear prabhu ji ,




allso in thr dhammapada there is mention of realms of the gods ....v177 ..

"verily the miserly do not go to the world of the gods , fools indeed do not praise giving .but the wise man rejoicing in charity becomes (on that account) happy in the other world ."

there are then levels of dhatu , realms , abodes or heavens . true this is discussed more in mahayana scriptures .
there is accknowldgement of gods in the dhammapada , and each god having its own function must in some sence be a creator , so as to the question of a supreme god , a supreme creator ?

again it is only my personal beleif but just because buddha did not discuss some thing it does not mean that it didnot exist , buddha simply taught the path to realisation .

"in this very life he is allayed , becomes cool , he abides in the experience of bliss within a self that has become brahma."....maijhima nikaya 1.344

thus the buddha states that it is possible to atain nirvana in this very life even whilst still in an embodied condition , but upon death that being does not return .it may then reside in one of many realms or heavens .whereby he might then de fit to realise god .

Thanks for your good post.

Regards

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Buddhist Emperor Ashoka’s title “Beloved one of Gods”.

Emperor Ashoka’s given name was Asoka but he assumed the title Devanampiya Piyadasi which means "Beloved-of-the-Gods, He Who Looks on with Affection."
Ashoka (ca. 304–232 BC) - also known as Ashoka the Great was an Indian Emperor of the Maurya Dynasty.

His period was prior to the canonization of Buddhist scripture; and he was a fervent follower of Buddha; under his rule Buddha’s teachings spread far and wide.

His title shows us that he was Theist; and this clearly hints that the earlier followers of Buddha were believers of Theists; they were not Atheists or Agnostics.

Not that it matters, since the scriptures show Buddha as denying a supreme being or creator god. Nice try though.

Seeing as atheism never became prominent during that time, why would this prove anything?

 

[paarsurrey]

Not that it matters, since the scriptures show Buddha as denying a supreme being or creator god. Nice try though.

Seeing as atheism never became prominent during that time, why would this prove anything?

Later I searched and found following article:


Originally Buddhism was Vaishnavism

How would you repudiate it by your reasonable arguments.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not that it matters, since the scriptures show Buddha as denying a supreme being or creator god. Nice try though.

Seeing as atheism never became prominent during that time, why would this prove anything?

Buddhist Emperor Ashoka’s title was “Beloved one of Gods”.
Do you deny it? Please.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Buddhist Emperor Ashoka’s title was “Beloved one of Gods”.
Do you deny it? Please.

What's there to deny? If it were relevant to Buddha himself, I would gladly debate it, but Ashoka was not the Buddha, and people always twist religions to their own ends...

 

[atanu]

Later I searched and found following article:
Originally Buddhism was Vaishnavism

How would you repudiate it by your reasonable arguments.

That is ISCKON claim only. In fact, the whole of Buddha teaching is nearly opposed to staunchly dualistic faith of some Vaisnavites.

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddha described, I understand, in Sutta-Nipta (Chapter on Going to the Far Shore) as to how to become at one with God.

I could not locate it ; anybody to help in this respect, please.

 

[atanu]

Buddha described, I understand, in Sutta-Nipta (Chapter on Going to the Far Shore) as to how to become at one with God.

I could not locate it ; anybody to help in this respect, please.

Parayanavagga — The Chapter on the Way to the Far Shore

Sutta Nipata: The Sutta Collection

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

That is ISCKON claim only. In fact, the whole of Buddha teaching is nearly opposed to staunchly dualistic faith of some Vaisnavites.

It is true that ISCON accept buddha as an incarnation of visnu , but so also do most branches within the vaisnava tradition .

there is allso much historical evedence of close buddhist ties to vaisnava deitys and temples throughout india prior to the arival of adi shankara .

 

[ratikala]

dear paarsurey ,

Later I searched and found following article:


Originally Buddhism was Vaishnavism

.

I read the above article , and can agree in many respects but would not entirely endorse the entire article as it is a very emotive subject , the writer seems to wish to
paralel pure land buddhism and vaisnavism , whilst refuting thereavada ?

Pure Land Buddhism as Vaishnavism
Part Nine: Exposing the Historical Emptiness of Theravadin Buddhist
Claims
by Bhakti Ananda Goswami

firstly I would have to read more of his writing ,

Personaly I see no need to refute the historical validity of theravada despite the fact that I am not a theravadin .
coming from a mahayana buddhist background to vaisnavism I understand the paralells being drawn in this article and can agree that historicaly there was a much higher incidence of mahayana thought within india and much closer links with vaisnava thought and worship .

if one studies any tradition one can see evolving thought and behavioral patterns , no tradition remains entirely true to its founding thought or teaching and each takes on a little of its surrounding culture and will assimilate thought and tradititon from the practitioners where ever it is practiced , so as any tradition spreads it will take on a different flavor even when the core teachings are preserved .
the differences in buddhist traditions are a good example , as buddhism spread from india to the theravada practicing countrys it is only natural that the emphasis will have taken on a different character there fore I see no need to refute theravada , just as I see no need for theravadins to refute the validity of mahayana thought , which of course accepts the concept of god .

(will return to this point later )

 

[paarsurrey]

dear paarsurey ,

I read the above article , and can agree in many respects but would not entirely endorse the entire article as it is a very emotive subject , the writer seems to wish to
paralel pure land buddhism and vaisnavism , whilst refuting thereavada ?

firstly I would have to read more of his writing ,

Personaly I see no need to refute the historical validity of theravada despite the fact that I am not a theravadin .
coming from a mahayana buddhist background to vaisnavism I understand the paralells being drawn in this article and can agree that historicaly there was a much higher incidence of mahayana thought within india and much closer links with vaisnava thought and worship .

if one studies any tradition one can see evolving thought and behavioral patterns , no tradition remains entirely true to its founding thought or teaching and each takes on a little of its surrounding culture and will assimilate thought and tradititon from the practitioners where ever it is practiced , so as any tradition spreads it will take on a different flavor even when the core teachings are preserved .
the differences in buddhist traditions are a good example , as buddhism spread from india to the theravada practicing countrys it is only natural that the emphasis will have taken on a different character there fore I see no need to refute theravada , just as I see no need for theravadins to refute the validity of mahayana thought , which of course accepts the concept of god .

(will return to this point later )

Thanks for your detailed appraisal of the article.
I note your words "validity of mahayana thought , which of course accepts the concept of god ."; on what suttas they base their "concept of god"?

Regards