Buddhists don't believe in G-d: why should they have a scripture then?

[metis]

You may think that, but I believe many do use rituals and statues for something to cling to, all these must be dropped if one wants realization of their true inner Buddha. .

I don't disagree with that as you'll find those kind of attachments with some Buddhists, but also even in all other religions as well. It sorta goes with the territory.

 

[paarsurrey]

The religious scripture guide one where reason aided with its other conjugal partners cannot go further;there Revelation provides wings to travel in space/time and beyond. If scripture does not have this characteristics it is useless to read it and have faith in it.

Regards

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Probably a good point at which to mention the Kalama Sutta.

Kalama Sutta: The Instruction to the Kalamas

 

[Vishvavajra]

The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara VII. 62)

First we take The Sermon of the Seven Suns (ANGUTTARA NIKÂYA VII. 62).

What was the source of knowledge of Buddha while he told following expressions in the sermon?
Expressions of Buddha in “the sermon of the seven suns”

· “ Sineru, the monarch of mountains, reek and fume and send forth clouds of smoke”
· “and goes as far as the worlds of God”
· “fellowship with the world of God”
· “to weal in the world of God”
· “were born again, upon the dissolution of the body after death”
· “some into fellowship with those angels who transmute subjective delights into objective and share them with others”
· “he did not return to this world”
· “Yea, then, O monks, he was a Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ (or, God), conquering, unconquered, all-seeing, controlling.”
· “Sakko, the lord of the angels”
· “supernal knowledge”

Buddha did believe in God, angels, life after death, revelation. He clearly mentions it in the above expression in the above Sermon.

Regards

There are a couple of problems here:

One is that you're using a sketchy translation made in 1901 by someone from a Christian background, who is using terms familiar to his own culture to render concepts that may not actually be so analogous if you look beneath the surface. For example, what is the Pal word that is being translated as "God," and what is its significance in the original language and context? Ditto the word that's being translated as "angels." The point is that you can't just point to these words in this archaic, quite loose translation and use that as any kind of evidence for an argument. If you want to make a real argument based on scripture, or any other ancient text, if you can't go back to the original language, it's a non-starter.

The other, deeper problem is that you've got a lot of preconceived notions and aren't actually interested in evidence or the views of people who actually practice the religion you're talking about. You'd already made up your mind before you asked the question, and you don't want to hear the answers.

But however much you don't want to hear it, the fact is that Buddhism does not contain the beliefs and concepts that you are trying to find in it, and poking around in the scriptures like that isn't going to demonstrate much of anything. Shakyamuni wasn't a Jew or a Christian and didn't have a worldview that the average Jew or Christian would find familiar. Taking a few poorly translated words out of context from a text that was set down centuries after his death isn't going to tell you anything about his views.

As for the question of what Buddhist scripture is and what it means to be the Buddhas words, that's something we could explain to you if you'd be so kind as to empty your cup first.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Buddhadharma is a revealed religion in a sense, but it's unique in that the revelation is something that anyone is capable of finding out for themselves. What the teachings of the Buddhas do is to make the path easier for people so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel each and every time. That means more people can be saved in each lifetime, since we get to stand on the shoulders of giants, if you will. The scriptures are tools meant to help people in their practice by fostering correct views. They are inspired in the sense that they are thought to be written from the point of view of Awakened mind (i.e. Buddha, in the literal but not necessarily in the individual sense, even if the scriptural narratives place them in the mouth of one man in particular).

That is not at all the same as the mainstream Christian or Muslim views of scripture and revelation, which entail the granting of authority by some higher power. Buddhist scripture is authoritative in the sense that a peer-reviewed medical journal is authoritative, not in the way that the decrees of the emperor are authoritative.

 

[Vishvavajra]

What was Buddha's source of knowledge except Word of Revelation from G-d.
Regards

Insight gained from asking the right questions in the right circumstances, in a way that is possible for everyone but is seldom actually realized.

It's important to understand that in Buddhist thought, the ultimate truth of reality isn't something that's secreted away from us in another world; it's right here, plain for anyone to see. The problem is that people don't see it because they're prone to distraction and have developed a habit of ignoring what's in front of them, although that is curable. Shakyamuni Buddha, like all Buddhas, cured himself of this problem and set about trying to help others be cured as well. The scriptures are developments and distillations of those teachings, meant to serve as an adjunct to one's daily practice. The concept of "Word of Revelation from G-d" is alien to the tradition.