Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[KriyaUK]

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). 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

Very good points Punkdbass.

The Yogacara and Jonang schoold of Buddhism see the 'buddha-nature' similarly to how you describe it here.

Others, (like Theravada) would vehemently deny it.

A very wise Buddhist friend once said:

"Buddhists are people who strive for heaven, but are not allowed to admit that it's heaven they're striving for".

There is a lot of truth in that!

Budhists must renounce all attachment and that in essence includes attachment towards wanting an ever-lasting existance (whatever is existing!) or wanting an enlightened state for one's "own pleasure".

But of course Buddhist's want to be enlightened.

Like all paths, it contains contradictions and elements that cannot be resolved in intellectual contemplation.

Personally I see the Buddhist Dharma practices being quite clear and unambiguous...... and generally speaking, (except in Theravada) the entology and consideration of what 'enlightenment' or Buddha-nature really is, to be agnostic.

Others will disagree.

 

[punkdbass]

Awesome post, thank you!

haha I love this quote: "Buddhists are people who strive for heaven, but are not allowed to admit that it's heaven they're striving for" ... I'm definitely going to remember that lol

 

[Ekanta]

About the unborn/Buddha-nature... I just read some in zen-master Dogens Shobogenzo and want to give a few example quotes:

Example:
The Twelfth Indian Ancestor, Venerable Ashvaghoṣa, in describing the Ocean of Buddha Nature for the sake of the Thirteenth Ancestor, once said:
The great earth with its mountains and rivers
Takes all its various forms completely in accord with It,
And deep meditative states and the six spiritual powers
Manifest themselves because of It.
Accordingly, this great earth with all its mountains and rivers is the Ocean of Buddha Nature. To say that It takes all its various forms completely in accord with It means that, at such time as this materialization takes place, It is the great earth with its mountains and rivers. In his having said that the earth takes all its various forms in accord with It, you should realize that the form of the Ocean of Buddha Nature is like this. Further, It is not something to be associated with being inside, or outside, or in the midst of It.

Example:
...the boy said, “Because Buddha Nature is devoid, you therefore say that It is beyond existence [i.e. beyond manifest/changing],” ... Since It is devoid, he does not say that It is empty, and since It is beyond existence, he does not say that It is nothing: he says that since Buddha Nature is devoid, It is beyond existence [i.e. beyond manifest/changing].

Example:
One of them asked, “Is Buddha Nature larger than I am or smaller?”
The Venerable One [Nāgārjuna] replied, “Buddha Nature is neither large nor small, neither vast nor constricted. It is beyond happiness, beyond retribution, for It is undying and unborn.”

Example:
To learn what the path to Buddhahood is, is to learn what the True Self is. To learn what the True Self is, is to forget about the self. To forget about the self is to become one with the whole universe. To become one with the whole universe is to be shed of ‘my body and mind’ and ‘their bodies and minds’.

Example:
Chōsa once said, “The whole universe in all ten directions is a person’s true Real Body. The whole universe in all ten directions lies within the radiant brightness of one’s own True Self.”

And personally I might add that the primal symbol of buddhism, created by Buddha himself is the Kāṣāya, the monk/nun robe. Its made to symbolize a rice field and hence the World. When a monk/nun wears it, its a reminder that their real body is the whole world. What is it but a symbol of Buddha-nature?

 

[Urban Dharmic Warrior]

/\ /\ /\ Great post! ... Frubal in the post.