Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[atanu]

Um, no.

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is the ending of suffering.

Um Um.

 

[crossfire]

Um Um.

Um mu.

Mu (negative) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ultimately, Śūnyatā has no exact parallel in other religions.

Sunyata is not Brahman. Sunyata is illusion, maya, absence of permanence in an observed thing.

That is the ultimate teaching of Buddhism. Isn't it?

Sunyata of Buddhism is the illusion, maya of advaita. Neither is nihilism. And illusion, maya of advaita is a gift of Upanishads. But there is more to Buddhism than just sunyata.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay,I see that some Hindus or some-else want to have a discussion regarding god of Buddhism.Buddhist of course have any reason to support or refute that claim.But are they in denial?

No.

That simple, really.

 

[Ekanta]

Sunyata is the unborn.

From the Heart Sutra (Mahayana):
Thus Sariputra, Form is emptiness; emptiness is form
Form does not differ from emptiness, Emptiness does not differ from form
Form itself is emptiness, emptiness itself is form
So too are feeling, perception, formation and consciousness
Thus Sariputra, all dharmas are empty of characteristics
No birth, no cessation, no defilement, no purity, no increase and no decrease
Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra

Zen-master Deshimaru explains:
"What is real, Ku [sunyata], is Being itself, Original Mind, Pure Consciousness, of which the world is the temporal manifestation...."
http://www.izauk.org/wp-content/uplo...ring08Godo.pdf

All phenomena are sunyata, i.e. they have no independent existence apart from the unborn of which they are but a manifestation.

 

[DreadFish]

There is no some people apart from your mind. That is the ultimate teaching of Buddhism. Isn't it?

Um, no.

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is the ending of suffering.

For what it's worth, there is a middle ground here, as pointed out by this quote from Ajahn Chah's biography:

Ajahn Mun told him that although the teachings are indeed extensive, at their heart they are very simple. With mindfulness established, if it is seen that everything arises in the heart-mind: right there is the true path of practice.

I guess I would say because the ending of suffering comes from realizing this.

Of course, I haven't realized any of this so, besides quoting other people's words to assert the fact of the matter, all I can give is my opinion

Im not really contributing anything to the conversation but, I felt like pointing that out.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Um, no.

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is the ending of suffering.

prehaps it is not read in your tradition? ....but to many the ultimate teaching is the lotus sutra ......in which neither shunyata or the ceasation of suffering are held to be the ultimate attainment , and in which the higest bliss is the state of buddhahood , the true jewel that trancends all understandings .
further more it speaks of the aspiration of bodhichita and the propencity for buddhas to appear for the benifit of mankind , thus implying that their nature is beyond that of the conventional realm and that they are omnicient , omnipotent and omnipresent .

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram :namaste


prehaps it is not read in your tradition? ....but to many the ultimate teaching is the lotus sutra ......in which neither shunyata or the ceasation of suffering are held to be the ultimate attainment , and in which the higest bliss is the state of buddhahood , the true jewel that trancends all understandings .
further more it speaks of the aspiration of bodhichita and the propencity for buddhas to appear for the benifit of mankind , thus implying that their nature is beyond that of the conventional realm and that they are omnicient , omnipotent and omnipresent .

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14] And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks, 'They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.​

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves
Entire sutta

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"​

 

[ratikala]

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14] And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks, 'They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.​

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves
Entire sutta

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa[1] forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"​

then having become well versed in the ''rudements'' , ... having realised that , that which we cling to is the cause of suffering , having let go of clinging one may go beyond the ''rudementary'' teachings.

thus at the end of his life lord buddha gave his discourse named the lotus sutra .

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread closed for cleanup and so we can decide what we ultimately want to do with it.​

 

[MoonWater]

*** OK, this thread has been moved back into the Buddhism DIR after a massive clean up. Something like 40 posts and their responses have been deleted for any number of rule violations including rules 1,2,3,4, and 10.

This is the topic: 'Can a Buddhist believe in God?'.

If you want to discuss anything else, start your own thread in the appropriate forum.

If anyone who's had their posts deleted in this thread would like to have copies thereof sent to them so they can use them in another thread, PM me or another staff member so we can send those to you (unless those posts violate the rules to the point that they'd be inappropriate in any forum).

Just a note: DO NOT QUOTE AND RESPOND TO THIS STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT. If anyone has any further objections regarding staff actions taken in this thread, start a thread in Site Feedback. ***

 

[punkdbass]

So I just had a thought today - a possible argument for some sort of Supreme Being, and I'm curious to hear Buddhists' responses. The thought I had reminded me of something Atanu said in the thread in the Buddhist DIR about the notion of "Self," Here is the quote:

...what was [is] the awareness connection between samsara (characterised by risings and setting) and nibbana (where there is no passing away or coming into being), if consciousness was caused solely by interdependent origination

...the loss of ego and gain of Nibbana can never be discerned.

Here is my thought: In Buddhism, there is a concept of anatta (no self) - meaning nothing inherently exists, completely independent and unconditioned in and of itself - every concept you can think of is dependent upon something. Buddhists would use this idea to deny the existence of a completely independent, unconditional Supreme Being.

What I find interesting though, is the state of nirvana/enlightenment/liberation - the state of no attachments/desires, which is a very real state, seems to be a unanimously constant state, as described by those who attain it... almost "eternal-like" if you will. A being that has reached a state of Liberation, is by definition, free of all attachments and desires - completely independent and unconditioned (correct me if I'm mistaken here). When I sit in meditation, I get a glimpse of this state, and it feels so profoundly real - and many people who have attained liberation attest to its reality. So my question is, doesn't the existence of a reality that is completely free of attachments/desires, free of the wheel of birth and death, completely independent and unconditional - attest to the very existence of a reality apart from samsara, an unconditional/independent reality? I.e. that which people, for ages, have called a Supreme Being or God? And if you say this reality that enlightened people speak of, is not independent, and indeed is conditional, then wouldn't it by definition still be a part of Samsara? And if so, how could one ever discern that they had obtained Enlightenment if it was still a part of Samsara? But if it is not a part of Samsara, and is therefore independent and unconditional, then does this not attest to an unconditional reality - i.e. doesn't this attest to the reality of a Supreme Being? Ohhh the headaches of duality... Curious to hear your thoughts.

I just want to be clear here: I am NOT talking about the existence of an individual eternal soul, or trying to create an argument supportive of reincarnation - that is not my intention. I am purely talking about an argument for a Supreme Being.

Namaste

 

[crossfire]

So I just had a thought today - a possible argument for some sort of Supreme Being, and I'm curious to hear Buddhists' responses. The thought I had reminded me of something Atanu said in the thread in the Buddhist DIR about the notion of "Self," Here is the quote:



Here is my thought: In Buddhism, there is a concept of anatta (no self) - meaning nothing inherently exists, completely independent and unconditioned in and of itself - every concept you can think of is dependent upon something. Buddhists would use this idea to deny the existence of a completely independent, unconditional Supreme Being.

What I find interesting though, is the state of nirvana/enlightenment/liberation - the state of no attachments/desires, which is a very real state, seems to be a unanimously constant state, as described by those who attain it... almost "eternal-like" if you will. A being that has reached a state of Liberation, is by definition, free of all attachments and desires - completely independent and unconditioned (correct me if I'm mistaken here).

Actually, nibbana is without a basis, i.e, undefined, untraceable. (See the quote from The Water Snake Simile I've been throwing around that says, "The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now."

When I sit in meditation, I get a glimpse of this state, and it feels so profoundly real - and many people who have attained liberation attest to its reality. So my question is, doesn't the existence of a reality that is completely free of attachments/desires, free of the wheel of birth and death, completely independent and unconditional - attest to the very existence of a reality apart from samsara, an unconditional/independent reality?

Samsara and Nibbana are really more like adverbs than nouns. Samsara is bound, Nibbana is unbound. Nibbana is also used as a verb--nibbuti,--to go out (like a flame.) Mind bound like fire to it's fuel is burning--samsara-ing. Mind unbound is the ending of this clinging burning. Where does fire go when it is extinguished?

I.e. that which people, for ages, have called a Supreme Being or God? And if you say this reality that enlightened people speak of, is not independent, and indeed is conditional, then wouldn't it by definition still be a part of Samsara? And if so, how could one ever discern that they had obtained Enlightenment if it was still a part of Samsara? But if it is not a part of Samsara, and is therefore independent and unconditional, then does this not attest to an unconditional reality - i.e. doesn't this attest to the reality of a Supreme Being? Ohhh the headaches of duality... Curious to hear your thoughts.

I just want to be clear here: I am NOT talking about the existence of an individual eternal soul, or trying to create an argument supportive of reincarnation - that is not my intention. I am purely talking about an argument for a Supreme Being.

Namaste

Are you attesting to something like god as an extinguished fire?

 

[punkdbass]

Are you attesting to something like god as an extinguished fire?

Most of the Buddhists here, correct me if I'm wrong, have explained that Nirvana is more than literal, complete, utter nothingness or annihilation (extinguished fire).

I think your analogy is nice, but I don't see how it does justice in pointing to or describing the reality of nirvana - which ultimately can't be described in words anyways lol so please don't take offense. A living, enlightened being, in my view, is much more than extinguished fire - or utter nothingness.

 

[crossfire]

Most of the Buddhists here, correct me if I'm wrong, have explained that Nirvana is more than literal, complete, utter nothingness or annihilation (extinguished fire).

I think your analogy is nice, but I don't see how it does justice in pointing to or describing the reality of nirvana - which ultimately can't be described in words anyways lol so please don't take offense. A living, enlightened being, in my view, is much more than extinguished fire - or utter nothingness.

Well the example of Moses speaking to God through the burning bush (that wasn't consumed by the fire) just came to my mind....now I need some aspirin!

 

[punkdbass]

Well the example of Moses speaking to God through the burning bush (that wasn't consumed by the fire) just came to my mind....now I need some aspirin!

Interesting.. yeah me too, I'm done philosophizing for the day haha. But if anyone is interested, I created a thread called "The Spirit of God, Eternal Peace and Fulfillment is Real" in the religious debate forums.. it was a realization inspired by my previous post.. honestly I should have posted it in the Dharmic DIR because it is most relevant to the Dharmic Religions but oh well. Check it out here if you want. I'm sure my syncretism and universalism will really tick some people off as usual bahaha.

Namaste.

 

[Ablaze]

Here is my thought: In Buddhism, there is a concept of anatta (no self) - meaning nothing inherently exists, completely independent and unconditioned in and of itself - every concept you can think of is dependent upon something. Buddhists would use this idea to deny the existence of a completely independent, unconditional Supreme Being.

Good so far.

What I find interesting though, is the state of nirvana/enlightenment/liberation - the state of no attachments/desires, which is a very real state, seems to be a unanimously constant state, as described by those who attain it... almost "eternal-like" if you will. A being that has reached a state of Liberation, is by definition, free of all attachments and desires - completely independent and unconditioned (correct me if I'm mistaken here).

Here is where we first run into problems. A "being" that has reached a state of liberation is not unconditioned. Their state of being free from all suffering - unconditioned by greed, hate, and delusion - is. Unconditioned does not mean without-cause or independently-existing. In Buddhism, unconditioned refers to being unconditioned by greed, hate, and delusion. For a being liberated from suffering, the conditions for the arising of greed, hate, and delusion - and hence the arising of suffering - are absent.

When I sit in meditation, I get a glimpse of this state, and it feels so profoundly real - and many people who have attained liberation attest to its reality. So my question is, doesn't the existence of a reality that is completely free of attachments/desires, free of the wheel of birth and death, completely independent and unconditional - attest to the very existence of a reality apart from samsara, an unconditional/independent reality? I.e. that which people, for ages, have called a Supreme Being or God?

For millenia, people have mistaken Nirvana as a plane of existence. It is no such thing. Rather, Nirvana is a state of mind free from (unconditioned by) greed, hate, and delusion. It is so exceedingly straightforward that people miss what is right in front of them.

And if you say this reality that enlightened people speak of, is not independent, and indeed is conditional, then wouldn't it by definition still be a part of Samsara? And if so, how could one ever discern that they had obtained Enlightenment if it was still a part of Samsara? But if it is not a part of Samsara, and is therefore independent and unconditional, then does this not attest to an unconditional reality - i.e. doesn't this attest to the reality of a Supreme Being? Ohhh the headaches of duality... Curious to hear your thoughts.

Enlightenment is not a thing to be obtained, an object of attainment. It is the release from all "obtaining," once and for all. It is a "letting go," if you will. The fundamental misunderstanding here seems to be in relation to the nature of the term "unconditioned" in Buddhism. Unconditioned refers to being unconditioned by greed, hate, and delusion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an unconditioned Supreme Being. It is really quite simple.

 

[punkdbass]

Awesome, thank you for helping to clarify the misconceptions I was having.. I knew when I made that post that my "field of vision" was too narrow, and I was hoping that you Buddhists here could help "open my field of vision" if that makes sense.

So "unconditional" in respect to an enlightened person means free or unconditioned in regards to that which leads to suffering. But this does not mean the enlightened person's state of being is without cause or independently existing.. this makes sense, thank you for clarifying. Nirvana is a state of mind free/unconditioned of that which leads to suffering, makes sense.

One last thing, I was wondering if you could check out a thread I recently created here.. it is relevant to Buddhism and some of the discussions we've had here in the Buddhism DIR. Anyhow, if you have time, I was wondering if you could let me know if my ideas in that thread are in any way compatible with Buddhism, and also to let me know if I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting Buddhist concepts in my thread,

Namaste

 

[Twilight Hue]

You know, the entire subject matter only applies as long as there is form that enables to address the nuances of god, enlightenment, or whatever. There is only an acknowledgment pertaining to the phenomena of thought and "self". Beliefs are empty as that of the form enabling those beliefs. God is that only of what arises through this relationship and what is observed, like the arising of phenomena of life, leaving completely the creation of such things at the onset and initiation of death, giving way to what is actually word-less through the lens of rising and falling phenomena for whatever duration such things last.


This whole subject and it's content will be left at the "edge" of the pond. Ungraspable emptiness.

 

[apophenia]

You know, the entire subject matter only applies as long as there is form that enables to address the nuances of god, enlightenment, or whatever. There is only an acknowledgment pertaining to the phenomena of thought and "self". Beliefs are empty as that of the form enabling those beliefs. God is that only of what arises through this relationship and what is observed, like the arising of phenomena of life, leaving completely the creation of such things at the onset and initiation of death, giving way to what is actually word-less through the lens of rising and falling phenomena for whatever duration such things last.


This whole subject and it's content will be left at the "edge" of the pond. Ungraspable emptiness.

Lovely.