Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[Ablaze]

In the Brahmajala Sutta (Digha Nikaya 1) the Buddha refutes God's omnipotence, position as the first cause, and role as creator.

2.3. [Wrong view 5] ‘But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding world and empty palace of Brahma appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace. And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious- and he stays like that for a very long time.

2.4. ‘Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks:”Oh, if only some other beings would come here!” And other beings, from exhaustion of their life-span or of their merits, fall from the ?bhassara world and arise in the Brahma-palace as companions for this being. And there they dwell, mind-made,…and they stay like that for a very long time.

2.5. ‘And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks:”I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by me. How so? Because I first had this thought: ’Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ That was my wish, and then these beings came into this existence!” But those beings who arose subsequently think: “This, friends, is Brahma, Great Brahma the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after him.”

Brahmajala Sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

 

[Ablaze]

Also, in the Tittha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya 3.61), the Buddha refutes God's benevolence:

"Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."' (Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.61)

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views."

Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 3.61

 

[Ablaze]

As another example, in the Brahmanimantanika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 49), the Buddha refutes the position that God is eternal:

"When this was said, I told Baka Brahma, 'How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! — in that what is actually inconstant he calls "constant." What is actually impermanent he calls "permanent." What is actually non-eternal he calls "eternal." What is actually partial he calls "total." What is actually subject to falling away he calls "not subject to falling away." Where one takes birth, ages, dies, falls away, and reappears, he says, "For here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear." And there being another, higher escape, he says, "There is no other, higher escape."'

Brahmanimantanika Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 49

 

[crossfire]

Let's get back to this post, first, getting away from Zen for the moment:

All discernment is possible because there is uncreated-unformed-unborn. The mind rises from it but mind cannot be conscious of it. And that is the problem for most western minds and scientists.

Water Snake Simile
I'll hide the explanation leading up to the gist of statement to save space:

Spoiler: long, point by point explanation leading up to the next verse

"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

"Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency (ditthi-nissaya), depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"...Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, [10] whose moat is filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off? There is the case where a monk's ignorance is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose cross-bar is thrown off.

"And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in? There is the case where a monk's wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose moat is filled in.

"And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out? There is the case where a monk's craving is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose pillar is pulled out.

"And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn? There is the case where a monk's five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.

"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now.​

The basis for tathatā cannot be traced to any causal factor or as being shaped by any causal factor--it is ineffable, Unshaped, Unformed by anything we can trace, but can be experienced in the here & now.

Did Buddha ever say anything positive or negative like that?

Anyone who knows the uncreated, becomes All -- whether you call such a being God or not is upto you.

The problem of assigning self is addressed in the above sutta.

That is why in an earlier post I noted that for a Hindu and for a Buddhist, the Guru (assuming that the Guru knows the uncreated) is the God.

Buddha awakened by himself.

Although a Buddhist will not say so explicitly but there is no denying that Buddha is guide who is within consciousness.

Example?

For Hindus, Tathagata is not different from other Brahmavid sages (the sages who by knowing Brahman have attained Brahmanhood). And most Hindus do give that status to Buddha.

Buddha rejected most Brahmavid teachings, and when Hinduism declared Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu, this is when Buddhism died out in India.

When all phenomenon is a passing show except the uncreated, then, does that non-dual when known leave any scope of a second?

I don't understand what you mean by "leave any scope of a second." Can you clarify this part?

 

[Ablaze]

The quotes above are merely a handful of many other cases in which the Buddha rejects the notion of God. He acknowledges that should there even be a God, it is neither omniscient, nor eternal, nor the creator of all things, nor benevolent, nor omnipotent. What does that leave? A deluded being. This, again, is from the perspective of Buddhism. Other religious or spiritual paths and practitioners are free to disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that.

May all beings be free from suffering.

:namaste

 

[crossfire]

The quotes above are merely a handful of many other cases in which the Buddha rejects the notion of God. He acknowledges that should there even be a God, it is neither omniscient, nor eternal, nor the creator of all things, nor benevolent, nor omnipotent. What does that leave? A deluded being. This, again, is from the perspective of Buddhism. Other religious or spiritual paths and practitioners are free to disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that.

May all beings be free from suffering.

:namaste

^^this....:yes:

I have explored this idea with theists in connection to the idea of free-will, with compassion with no traceable cause being enough to help an "omnipotent being" become assured they are not delusional--that all this "creation" is not illusion--merely a product of this "omnipotent being's" "omnipotent mind."

 

[Poeticus]

Buddha rejected most Brahmavid teachings, and when Hinduism declared Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu, this is when Buddhism died out in India.

1. Not Hinduism (it's academically and historically incorrect to treat Hinduism as monolithic, even if it is out of convenience), but Vaishnavism. Hinduism didn't declare Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu. Vaishnavism did.

&

2. Why, o why...is Mahmud of Ghazni and other Muslim Iconoclastic invaders of the Indian Subcontinent never mentioned by both Buddhists and non-Buddhists as the death blow for Buddhism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? Nalanda University? Takshashila University? Hello? Anyone?

 

[atanu]

Again about Tevijja Sutta and other Sutras that you have posted, your cloudy mind is speaking. You do not even know the difference between brahmA -- the male creator God and the Brahman -- the unconditioned that is neither a Being nor a non-being.

It is mostly strong entrenchment in duality of mind that makes it difficult for many to discern that in the Unconditioned-Formless there cannot be a second. And Shiva is understood as one without a second.

Anyway, it is pointless to discuss of the implications of the non-dual attainment till we attain that by discarding the mind that creates the boundaries etc.. So, I will bow out. If you think that the uncreated cannot ever be a person then your view is only due to lack of wisdom. Buddha should have lost His personhood if he really knew the Uncreated-Unformed-Unborn.

On the contrary, Buddha was the greatest person because of knowing the Uncreated-Unformed-Unborn. So, since the skandas are all illusions, who or what taught through Buddha's form? Surely there was nothing real in Buddha's form which according to His own teaching was result of dependent rising. Then what was true in Buddha and His teaching?

 

[crossfire]

Again about Tevijja Sutta and other Sutras that you have posted, your cloudy mind is speaking. You do not even know the difference between brahmA -- the male creator God and the Brahman -- the unconditioned that is neither a Being nor a non-being.

This is true--I'm not Hindu, I'm a Buddhist, and am not all that familiar with Hinduism.

It is mostly strong entrenchment in duality of mind that makes it difficult for many to discern that in the Unconditioned-Formless there cannot be a second. And Shiva is understood as one without a second.

I was having difficulty discerning whether you meant "second" as in time, or "second" as in number. Apparently you mean number. Thank you for clarifying.

Anyway, it is pointless to discuss of the implications of the non-dual attainment till we attain that by discarding the mind that creates the boundaries etc.. So, I will bow out. If you think that the uncreated cannot ever be a person then your view is only due to lack of wisdom. Buddha should have lost His personhood if he really knew the Uncreated-Unformed-Unborn.

Actually, it would be due to a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion, according to Buddhism, which has already been stated on this thread.

On the contrary, Buddha was the greatest person because of knowing the Uncreated-Unformed-Unborn. So, since the skandas are all illusions, who or what taught through Buddha's form? Surely there was nothing real in Buddha's form which according to His own teaching was result of dependent rising. Then what was true in Buddha and His teaching?

Clinging to self does cause anguish, according to the Buddha.

 

[Ablaze]

Again about Tevijja Sutta and other Sutras that you have posted, your cloudy mind is speaking. You do not even know the difference between brahmA -- the male creator God and the Brahman -- the unconditioned that is neither a Being nor a non-being.

There is no need to attempt to throw insults. They don't have any impact.

The difference is very clear between Brahmā (It is helpful to use diacritics if you know how. Otherwise, you can copy and paste for clarity.) and Brahman (ब्रह्मन्; Also helpful to use the script for extra clarity. I will do this more from now on so there's no confusion when you're reading and trying to tell what I'm referring to). The quotes from the Nikayas above are about Brahmā. No one said they were about Brahman - specifically Saguṇa (सगु&#2339 or Nirguṇa Brahman (निर्गुण ब्रह्&#2350. God takes on many forms - Creator, Uncreated, Personal, Impersonal in other religions. The Buddha rejected all of the above notions of God. See the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Nibbāna Sutta, etc. for examples, plus the thousands of suttas dealing with Buddhist concepts such as the three seals (tilakkhaṇa).

Ultimately, there is no use in calling the notion of "the unconditioned that is neither a Being nor a non-being" by the name "God" - since in Buddhism, the unconditioned (asaṅkhata) is the cessation of suffering (nibbāna) through the destruction of lust (rāgakkhayo), the destruction of hatred (dosakkhayo), and the destruction of delusion (mohakkhayo). This is a negation (unconditioned, cessation of suffering, destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion).

Moreover, God is negated along with the recognition of the three characteristics - impermanence (transience), imperfection (suffering), and impersonality (not-self) - anicca, dukkha, anattā. If a God exists, it would have be to characterized by impermanence, imperfection, and impersonality. In all the notions of God - whether Brahmā, Saguṇa/Nirguṇa Brahman, or otherwise - at least one of these seals is violated, meaning such a God is not acceptable as a concept within the Buddhist framework.

On and on, again.

So, I will bow out. If you think that the uncreated cannot ever be a person then your view is only due to lack of wisdom.

...

May you be free from all suffering.

sabbe sattā sukhi hontu

:namaste

 

[Ablaze]

On the contrary, Buddha was the greatest person because of knowing the Uncreated-Unformed-Unborn. So, since the skandas are all illusions, who or what taught through Buddha's form? Surely there was nothing real in Buddha's form which according to His own teaching was result of dependent rising. Then what was true in Buddha and His teaching?

Clinging to self does cause anguish, according to the Buddha.

Wisely-stated, crossfire! Clinging to self is a cause for the arising of dukkha.

 

[crossfire]

Clinging to unreal causes problem. Fast abidance to the real is actually prescribed -- else you would not meditate.:yes:

But that was not the point. Forget it. Let me say it in another way.

You agree that there is an uncreated-unformed-unborn that makes discernment possible.

What matters if some call it God, some call it Brahman and some call it Nibbana ?

The words are later to it.

Well, if you want to call it god, you will suffer mental anguish. (Zen Buddhists have taken the mental anguish and applied it in a most interesting manner. I can only speculate whether this mental anguish was born from trying to equate the Taoist void with the Buddhist sunyata. It would be interesting to see if the same sort of thing will happen again with other faiths/philosophies which attempt the same sort of thing.)

 

[Ablaze]

OK. You took time to check it up and it shows. Now tell us where Buddha has said that Brahman is an imagination.

Welcome back. Impermanence is evident even in the action of returning after "bowing out." A person says they are leaving, then they re-appear. Arising and cessation - anicca - characterizes all phenomena. Everywhere, one sees that the Buddha describes all things as impermanent. Take one glance at practically any sutta in the Pali Canon. If you're looking for the word "Brahman," you won't find it. This is because the Buddha did not find it worthy of mention, since how can one speak of non-existent things? Brahman, a permanent substratum to existence, cannot exist. The Buddha, everywhere, says that all things are impermanent - permanence is a fabrication of the imagination. Thus, Brahman is a fabrication of the imagination.

Anicca vata sankhara
Uppada vaya dhammino
Uppajjitva nirujjhanti
Tesam vupasamo sukho

All things are impermanent
They arise and they pass away
To be in harmony with this truth
Brings great happiness

:namaste

 

[atanu]

--- permanence is a fabrication of the imagination. Thus, Brahman is a fabrication of the imagination.

Anicca vata sankhara
Uppada vaya dhammino
Uppajjitva nirujjhanti
Tesam vupasamo sukho

All things are impermanent
They arise and they pass away
To be in harmony with this truth
Brings great happiness

:namaste

Brahman is not a thing. It is unborn, it unformed, it is uncreated. Where has Buddha taught that Brahman was an imagination?

What was real in Buddha's form?

 

[Ablaze]

Brahman is not a thing. It is unborn, it unformed, it is uncreated.

That is the view of your religion. Buddhism does not endorse a view of Brahman.

:namaste

 

[Poeticus]

Okay, okay, okay, guys. Please stop. No debating in this section of RF, remember?

 

[Ablaze]

Where has Buddha taught that Brahman was an imagination?

What was real in Buddha's form?

Please read the full Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and see for yourself.

:namaste

 

[Ablaze]

Okay, okay, okay, guys. Please stop. No debating in this section of RF, remember?

Exactly, this is the Discuss Individual Religions sub-form, like I mentioned before. Bringing other religious views into it is not appropriate. That's why the posts from Buddhists in this thread are about the teachings of Buddhism, without introducing other religious views into the discussion, thus sticking to the OP. The side-tracking brought into the discussion by other religious perspectives is just anicca popping up everywhere - a good lesson in impermanence (for me at least)!

 

[Ablaze]

You might want to look into the Yogacara method of the purification of the seventh consciousness (I-making consciousness) along with the sixth consciousness (intellect.) Becoming conscious of your "I-making," contemplating it, and then intellectually refuting fallacious "I-making" is how the seventh counsiouness becomes purified, not destroyed. (While I don't agree with everything Yogacara teaches, I do agree with the purification of the "I-making consciousness" instead of the destruction of it.)

Good advice. From the perspective of Yogācāra Buddhism, I've found the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to be an excellent source of this type of wisdom. It is also a gem for understanding the Buddha's approach to the mind's imaginings - including the false view of God.

 

[punkdbass]

@Ablaze... I've read a few of your replies in the last few pages, and my question is this:

does the notion of the "Infinite" or "Eternal" then, have any meaning or significance for a Buddhist?