Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[ratikala]

Originally Posted by ratikala
how do you feel about the divine nature of vairocana as the embodiment of the sublime dharmakaya from where all buddhas manifest , and to where all buddhas return ?

Not God.

I asked you what you felt about the divine nature of Vairochana ???

Iam not nececarily asking if you think Vairochana is God ,

I am asking what is divinity ???

 

[crossfire]

I understand that this question was directed to Ablaze, but I would like to throw my two cents in here. My apologies if I'm intruding.

I asked you what you felt about the divine nature of Vairochana ???

Mostly dispassion, however not lacking a sense of wonder.

Iam not nececarily asking if you think Vairochana is God ,

I am asking what is divinity ???

It's not where you come from that's important. Awareness imbued with metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha in all directions, towards all beings, that is what is truly sublime. How you walk the path is more important than places of comings and goings, imo.

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

I understand that this question was directed to Ablaze, but I would like to throw my two cents in here. My apologies if I'm intruding.

no not at all , .....obviously coming from a mahayana tradition our veiw is very different

Mostly dispassion, however not lacking a sense of wonder.

yes , I can understand that it is not a thought that touches some peoples practice ,

so there may be an element of dispassion , however , .... this sence of wonder sounds interesting ?

It's not where you come from that's important. Awareness imbued with metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha in all directions, towards all beings, that is what is truly sublime. How you walk the path is more important than places of comings and goings, imo.

when I am talking of divinity it ts the embodiment of these qualities in their fullness , divinity is not awareness imbued with metta , it is pure unadulterated metta , pure karuna , the purest of pure maudita without any trace of preference or envy , it is uninterupted eternal equanimity , from which springs forth manifestationd of compassion such as the buddha to whom we are no doubt indebted ,

granted that whilst we are walking the path these places of coming and going might not be our main concern , but some times we might stop to refledct on the source of such kindness ???

 

[LuisDantas]

namaste :namaste



no not at all , .....obviously coming from a mahayana tradition our veiw is very different

Perhaps not quite that obvious.

That is an interesting point to consider. How different is that view? How much of the difference comes from a Mahayana origin? How different is it supposed to be, and which are the drawbacks and upsides of those differences?

Seeing how the litmus test of validity of any religion is how it actually works with real people in the real world, I am inclined to believe that the differences are in fact supposed to be of lesser importance, and I do not know that having a Mahayana origin is supposed to justify larger divergences at all. Different methods to a point, possibly. Different terminology, sure.

But attachment to a conception of divinity is simply not something worth keeping, even internally in any tradition. As I see it, it is not integral or even desirable. Be it on Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or even on Abrahamic Faiths.

Sure, the Abrahamists have sort of led themselves into a corner by relying so much into the concept of God and even some very specific varieties of same. But even for them, that is a defect, not a main or desired characteristic.

 

[Poeticus]

 

[Ablaze]

I asked you what you felt about the divine nature of Vairochana ???

Iam not nececarily asking if you think Vairochana is God ,

I am asking what is divinity ???

Mahāvairocana is the embodiment of emptiness, śūnyatā, the interdependent nature of all phenomena. In the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, it is stated that Vairocana:

1. accumulated roots of goodness in the past (i.e., was at one time not infinitely good, but achieved this exalted state through countless eons of practice)

2. was born from the oceans of roots of goodness (i.e., not Uncreated or Uncaused, but evolved into an infinitely good being through accumulated merit)

3. fulfilled the various means of transcendence (i.e., was not transcendent from the beginning, but became such through deep training in the perfections, the pāramitās)

4. possesses the wisdom eye that is thoroughly clear (i.e., perfect wisdom - prajñā pāramit&#257

5. observed all times with impartiality (i.e., perfect equanimity - upekkhā pāramit&#257

6. thoroughly comprehended the rarely attained, vast secret realm of all Buddhas (i.e., fully comprehended Nirvāṇa, the extinction of suffering)

And so on.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "God" in any form. This is called "enlightenment," not the "divinity" ascribed to God.

 

[Ablaze]

But attachment to a conception of divinity is simply not something worth keeping, even internally in any tradition.

:yes:

This is the crux of the matter.

 

[Ablaze]

when I am talking of divinity it ts the embodiment of these qualities in their fullness , divinity is not awareness imbued with metta , it is pure unadulterated metta , pure karuna , the purest of pure maudita without any trace of preference or envy , it is uninterupted eternal equanimity , from which springs forth manifestationd of compassion such as the buddha to whom we are no doubt indebted ,

In that case, sentient beings may be divine, which by implication demonstrates that there is no God-figure above and beyond humanity and the other sentient beings in existence.

 

[ratikala]

dear luis

.....That is an interesting point to consider. How different is that view? How much of the difference comes from a Mahayana origin? How different is it supposed to be, and which are the drawbacks and upsides of those differences?

it is what it is .... what matters is that its practice is helpfull to us in some way helping us to improve our lives and our understanding

Seeing how the litmus test of validity of any religion is how it actually works with real people in the real world, I am inclined to believe that the differences are in fact supposed to be of lesser importance, and I do not know that having a Mahayana origin is supposed to justify larger divergences at all. Different methods to a point, possibly. Different terminology, sure.

if it improves these given qualities of '' metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha'' then it works

But attachment to a conception of divinity is simply not something worth keeping, even internally in any tradition. As I see it, it is not integral or even desirable. Be it on Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or even on Abrahamic Faiths.

you may not feel that it is something you wish to contemplate but please do not rule in or out what is desirable or advisable for others .

furthermore I am not talking about atatchment I am talking about realisation

Sure, the Abrahamists have sort of led themselves into a corner by relying so much into the concept of God and even some very specific varieties of same. But even for them, that is a defect, not a main or desired characteristic.

if it makes them better persons then who am I to correct their beleifs or methods ?

to say that beleif in a figuere of god head is a defect is rather a sad thing to say .

what ever happened to the practice of equaninity ?

 

[crossfire]

to say that beleif in a figuere of god head is a defect is rather a sad thing to say .

what ever happened to the practice of equaninity ?

“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means stability in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.
-source-​

 

[ratikala]

In that case, sentient beings may be divine, which by implication demonstrates that there is no God-figure above and beyond humanity and the other sentient beings in existence.

thus they attain the (heavenly) higest realm ......

what scares you so much about divinity that you have to write it of as an abrahamic concept ???

 

[Ablaze]

thus they attain the (heavenly) higest realm ......

what scares you so much about divinity that you have to write it of as an abrahamic concept ???

Who's afraid? I'm writing with regard to the context the Buddha operated within. That is, the Vedic and Upanishadic notion of God and the Soul that merges with God (Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman, Paramātmā, etc.) - all of which were rejected by the Buddha.

 

[Ablaze]

"All such notions [of a] ...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

Gautama Buddha - लंकावतारसूत्र | Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

 

[ratikala]

“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means stability in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.
-source-​

thankyou but I am fully aware of the meaning of equanimity and dont need wickipidia to explain it .

I one who is ballanced enough to wish others well dosent need to attack the veiws of others just because they are not exactly the same as ones own .


it is the derision of others beleifs that I find sad , indifference would be prefferable

 

[Ablaze]

It is actually quite common to mistake some of the Mahāyāna teachings as theistic in some sense. Anticipating this, the Buddha made a very clear distinction between such notions as the Dharmakāya and God, the Tathāgatagarbha and Soul, etc. See this excerpt from the above quoted sūtra as an example:

"[M]y Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathagatahood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. ...The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment."

Gautama Buddha - लंकावतारसूत्र | Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

 

[Ablaze]

Likewise, even in the earliest Theravāda scriptures, the Buddha clarifies various misconceptions that arise from the contradictions inherent to theism:

From the Cullavagga of the Vinaya Piṭaka:

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it God, a personal creator? If God be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by God there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of God is overthrown.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?

"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

Cullavagga 6.2

 

[LuisDantas]

if it makes them better persons then who am I to correct their beleifs or methods ?

Ratikala.

I take it that you mean to imply some sort of special prerogative would be needed?

to say that beleif in a figuere of god head is a defect is rather a sad thing to say .

Then please notice that I said that reliance on specific conceptions of divinity is a defect, which is not really the same thing. That seems to make you sad. I do not know why.

You disagree, I assume?

what ever happened to the practice of equaninity ?

It has been challenged, as it is perhaps inevitable. But I will persist.

But if you mean that I am not being equanimous by pointing out a perceived defect of the Abrahamic faiths, then please stop. That is disrespectful and blunt of you, and I expected you to understand why by now.

I will not be pressured into submission to your attachment to theism. Accept that already.

 

[crossfire]

thankyou but I am fully aware of the meaning of equanimity and dont need wickipidia to explain it .

I one who is ballanced enough to wish others well dosent need to attack the veiws of others just because they are not exactly the same as ones own .


it is the derision of others beleifs that I find sad , indifference would be prefferable

And yet you are still shaken by it. This is my point.

 

[KriyaUK]

Perhaps Buddhism says that discussions on whether god* exists (*in any form that we may attach to the term 'god') are futile and fruitless. If this is the case then certainly arguing and using mental theorizing to disprove other people of their views is very futile and fruitless!

.....and if not undertaken carefully can look very much like a lack of compassion and warm intent.

Although the existence of god may not be relevent to Buddhism, the fact is every Buddhist will have a view that either (i) a god exists, (ii) no god exists, or (iii) a god may exist or may not.

Can any Buddhist really say "I have never, and will never contemplate the question"...

So we all hold a view, and use rationale and our mental reason to justify our view and perhaps to disassemble other people's views.

In my view, Buddhism is relentlessly made complicated over the passage of time. In our modern age (relative to the Gautama Buddha's time) our lives are so complicated and spread so thinly. This is often relected in what Buddhist practive has become or what it looks like in this age.

Personally I see Buddhism as the simplest path of all. An opportunity for simple good action over bad, and the positive effects that follow.

 

[Ablaze]

Personally I see Buddhism as the simplest path of all. An opportunity for simple good action over bad, and the positive effects that follow.

Yes, removing God from the equation (in additional to other questions relating to speculative metaphysics) substantially simplifies things. This is what makes the Buddhist path unique among world religions and spiritual practices - its simplicity due to dropping the concept of God, soul, and so on.