Did/does Buddha or buddhism ask you to abandon you conception of God?

[Ozzie]

For those of you who might have abandonned God and gone searching and experienced Buddhism or those of you who have had flirtations with Buddhism without abandonning your faith, this question might have significance.

Do they?

 

[Willamena]

I think that newly coming to understand Buddha or Buddhism requires you to abandon your conception of God.

 

[Ozzie]

I think that newly coming to understand Buddha or Buddhism requires you to abandon your conception of God.

I was considering an edit: for atheists, does Buddhism enable a Godless spirituality?

I disagree that understanding Buddha or Buddhism requires any abandonnment of a conception of God however (in that it is not necessary).

 

[Ozzie]

I think that newly coming to understand Buddha or Buddhism requires you to abandon your conception of God.

Why? How so?

 

[Booko]

It certainly required me to give up on anthropomorphic God-concepts.

But not God-concepts altogether.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Interesting Booko. Something similar here.

I came across Buddhism after an anthropocentric God-concept I had bottomed out into meaninglessness. Because of that it wasn't something that came up, was given up or taken up. Years later when I had experiences that left me with the impression there was a god-like being that had tried to communicate with me God-concepts became more of an issue.

I was concerned that the experience might represent some deep attachment to a Goddess deity figure since I'd read material relating to Zen that mentioned such things as potential hindrances to further awakening. It bothered me but in the end I relaxed because it occurred to me that if I was worrying about attachment to a Goddess the chances were it would also lead to worrying about attachment to Zen. Better just to stop. "Let it come, let it be, let it go" sorta thing.

 

[Willamena]

Why? How so?

Because Buddha consciousness is no-self.

 

[YmirGF]

Because Buddha consciousness is no-self.

Technically correct Willamena, but I interpret it to be such an alien perspective of "self" that it may as well BE "no self". My current perspective is light years away from the "normal" sense of self with the fixation on self as ego that people cannot really imagine it without being here too. Fortunately however, "self" continues and the concept of non-self is somewhat misleading to folks who take that definition literally.

 

[Ozzie]

Because Buddha consciousness is no-self.

Buddha consciousness is a realisation of impermanence. Impermanence does not equal no-self as annihalation of self, it is understanding impermanence of self (or structures that make up self).

Did you mean something else by "no-self"?

 

[Ozzie]

It certainly required me to give up on anthropomorphic God-concepts.

But not God-concepts altogether.

What God-concepts are not anthropomorphic? To rephrase that question, what did Buddhism teach you about God-concepts? Where is the separation? Is it a real/logical separation?

 

[Ozzie]

Interesting Booko. Something similar here.

I came across Buddhism after an anthropocentric God-concept I had bottomed out into meaninglessness. Because of that it wasn't something that came up, was given up or taken up. Years later when I had experiences that left me with the impression there was a god-like being that had tried to communicate with me God-concepts became more of an issue.

I was concerned that the experience might represent some deep attachment to a Goddess deity figure since I'd read material relating to Zen that mentioned such things as potential hindrances to further awakening. It bothered me but in the end I relaxed because it occurred to me that if I was worrying about attachment to a Goddess the chances were it would also lead to worrying about attachment to Zen. Better just to stop. "Let it come, let it be, let it go" sorta thing.

The tone of your post suggests does not require abandonnment of religious notions of God. Do you agree?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The tone of your post suggests does not require abandonnment of religious notions of God. Do you agree?

Yes. Not required. My post was personal but I think it roughly reflects the attitude of the kind of Buddhists I've mixed with the most. God just isn't an issue. On the other hand it would be surprising if God-concepts weren't challenged or changed in the natural course of Buddhist practice.

Another thing: I would think it unusual for people to be all that interested in Buddhism or take up Buddhist practice if they believed strongly in a God. Believing in a God would naturally come with a personal relationship to that God and ideas about the nature of existence that Buddhism probably wouldn't address. Buddhism might seem besides the point.

 

[Engyo]

For those of you who might have abandonned God and gone searching and experienced Buddhism or those of you who have had flirtations with Buddhism without abandonning your faith, this question might have significance.

Do they?

Ozzie -

I don't think that Buddhism does on its face. I do think that to fully embrace the teachings of Buddhism, one must come to one's own integration of some more-or-less mutually incompatible core concepts..........There are some Buddhist schools which teach things that are quite similar to various of the theistic faiths.

That said, I have known peoople who embraced both Buddhist principles and god-concepts. I'm not one of them, but it isn't impossible.

 

[Willamena]

Buddha consciousness is a realisation of impermanence. Impermanence does not equal no-self as annihalation of self, it is understanding impermanence of self (or structures that make up self).

Did you mean something else by "no-self"?

I just meant that. "No-self" does not equal "annihilation of self," just an understanding of impermanence, of the construct. The self that was permanent becomes (is now understood as) image. God, too, is an impermanent construct, which necessitates abandoning the idea of (or in my case, hope of) permanance in regard to God. All gods become the Image of God.

Edit: Maybe it's a Japanese Zen literal translation, I don't know.

 

[aoji]

No. Buddhism probably assumes that one will drop their beliefs naturally, that it will drop away all by itself without conscious willing or fore-thought.

What's the old story? A seeker asked Buddha one morning if there was a God and Buddha said, "No". Later in the afternoon a seeker asked the same question and Buddha said, "Yes". Later in the evening a seeker asked the same question and Buddha was silent. Ananda was perplexed and asked Buddha why he had given two different answers to the first two and no answer to the third. Buddha supposedly replied that to the first two he gave contrary answers (to the Theist, "No" and to the Atheist, "Yes,") because he wanted them to examine their beliefs, and he didn't want to justify their beliefs to them, and that the third was really seeking because he hadn't made up his mind one way or the other, so he shared Silence with him.

http://budaipedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gods_&_Goddesses

I really don't see a contradiction between non-dualistic Avaida Vedanta and Buddhism/Zen. It's the rain drop meeting the ocean metaphor. For example, in the Katha Upanishad it is said,

"The seer (Atman, Self) is not born, nor does he die,
He does not originate from anybody, nor does he become anybody,
Eternal, ancient one, he remains eternal,
he is not killed, even though the body is killed."

When Buddha looked with his Wisdom Eye he said that he could find no Self/Soul, that he couldn't see it having a beginning an no Self/Soul that existed from life to life. If the Self/Soul isn't born then there could be no beginning, and if it doesn't die then it cannot be said to survive death.

As Nisargadata said, these are just words which have no substance in Reality.

Even Plotinus in his Enneads said, "The One is all things and not a single one of them... It is because there is nothing in it that all things come from it; in order that being may exist, the One is not being, but the generator of being."

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/buddhist/buddhistdeities.htm

 

[psychoslice]

The concept of god is something that many cling to, and so I would say it would be better to give the concept of god up, to go within and find for yourself if there is a god, not listening to second hand scriptures, but to make your own scripture written within, a scripture that is yours and only yours.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

For those of you who might have abandonned God and gone searching and experienced Buddhism or those of you who have had flirtations with Buddhism without abandonning your faith, this question might have significance.

Do they?

The question of God just isnt relevent in buddhism is my understanding. A buddist way of life by default would please God is my reasoning so is not an issue i dont think.The hindus have millions of God in the light of this the buddha concluded it didnt really matter.What really matters locally like on this planet is, if your having a good day or a bad day an after that what kind of day your neighbour having is all that really matters.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

In Buddhism the focus is always on spiritual praxis, rather than abstract philosophy and metaphysics. I think one could believe in God, and be a Buddhist, but Buddhism, whether Theravada or Mahayana, does not make use of God, or the personal aspects of Nirvana, for its praxis. So, unless you wish to compromise Buddhism, then you'd need to follow its praxis and keep any belief in God as a purely intellectual belief.

 

[Prana Pastime]

For those of you who might have abandonned God and gone searching and experienced Buddhism or those of you who have had flirtations with Buddhism without abandonning your faith, this question might have significance.

Do they?

Yes and No. It is a school thing partly. Which school of Buddhist thought do you adhere to. People thought of Buddha as the supreme realized one. So in a way he
was god but one who was approachable which you might have a relationship with. A disciple can abide in emptiness or abide in fullness. They can abide in things having a beginning/start or abide in them being beginning-less/uncreated. In Buddhism God is paralleled with the Tathagata or Gautama. Others might not agree with
me but that would just be their present choice of how to abide. Ultimately Buddhism says all concepts go but waiting there when they do is an experience for the disciple or student which is a "God Type" experience. Its sort of like you were searching for the supreme truth but all along it has been "You", however, not the "you"
of your average everyday experience. Does that make any sense? We use the raft to get to the shore and the raft enables us to recognize the shore but they are different.