God in Buddhism - Is it a religion?

[nnmartin]

As far as I can make out there is no God in Buddhism?

I know there are different branches and at first it is easier for me to ask about Theravada Buddhism as that is what I have some experience of.

If there is no God can Buddhism be called a 'religion' - is it not just a form of philosophy?

sorry if this question has already been asked 100 times.

 

[indian_buddhist]

As far as I can make out there is no God in Buddhism?

I know there are different branches and at first it is easier for me to ask about Theravada Buddhism as that is what I have some experience of.

If there is no God can Buddhism be called a 'religion' - is it not just a form of philosophy?

sorry if this question has already been asked 100 times.

Definition of religion differs. For me a Religion should be guiding principle of a human.

I would classify religion into RELIGION SHOULD HAVE and RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE:

RELIGION SHOULD HAVE:
1. Be Rational.
2. Have rules of morality and immorality and guidence of what is right and wrong.
3. A spiritual philosophy to help moral guidence.
4. Can include political administration for rulers and guide for a layman and householder.
5. Should preach Equality of Man with Man. (Meaning even if all men are created unequal the society should consider them equal irrespective of gender, caste, economic status, color, creed, social status etc).

RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE:
1. A God and Soul.
2. Inequality of Man with Man. (Meaning like Hindu caste system which makes one man unequal to another).
3. Rites and Rituals.
4. Priesthood.
5. Dogma and Superstitions.
6. Immorality (lots of sexual verses), Hatred against other religions.
7. Be Irrational.

If you see Hinduism today most of it composes of aspects of RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE .

If you see Islam and Christianity it has certain aspects of RELIGION SHOULD HAVE but also unfortunately it has aspects of RELIGION SHOULD NOT HAVE (especially point #1, #6 and point #7).

So in my book, Buddhism is the perfect religion for mankind.

A religion should encourageto use Reason and Intelligence in everything than believe Dogma. Buddhism is ONLY religion today which encourages man to be more rational. Progress of man is possible only if he is rational. If a religion stifles thinking then it is of no use.


Man can truly investigate himself ONLY if he stops believing in God. Suppose u try a task with great effort and it did not happen most people say "IT WAS GODS WISH". It is laying blame to a third party rather than truly investigating our own weaknesses.

Religion progresses with development of man. Primitive man believed Sun,moon,water,fire were god themselves and worshipped nature. Later as man developed he decided that the source of all wonderful things in the world should have a single supernatural cause (It was more rational to think that) and so they labelled it as God.
A more developed society as today recognizes that belief in God is irrational and not in accordance with Science and evolution theory. So this society rejects God phenomenon.

 

[nnmartin]

I guess there are quite a few definitions of the word 'religion' .

To me this is the one that appeals most: the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers

 

[indian_buddhist]

I guess there are quite a few definitions of the word 'religion' .

To me this is the one that appeals most: the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers

God should not be the determining factor of defining the word religion.

 

[wmjbyatt]

As far as I can make out there is no God in Buddhism?

I know there are different branches and at first it is easier for me to ask about Theravada Buddhism as that is what I have some experience of.

If there is no God can Buddhism be called a 'religion' - is it not just a form of philosophy?

sorry if this question has already been asked 100 times.

Whether one views Buddhism as a "religion" or a "philosophy" (or an "anti-philosophy") depends on the style of one's individual practice, I imagine.

There are Vajrayana cults that, to an outside observer not deeply familiar with the twilight language and metaphors involved in that cult's traditions, would look like a Western God-worshipping pagan cult. Most Vajrayana in general his complex ritual systems deeply embedded, as well as substantial discussion surrounding deities, spirits, demons, metaphysical "realms" of existence, etc. This seems to me to be almost inarguably religious. The Buddhist notion of a "god," even in those schools that will talk about such things, is admittedly deeply different from the decidedly Abrahamic Western notion of "God," but that does not mean that both interpretations are not religious.

There is definitely a strong argument in favor of calling certain kinds of deeply aritualized Buddhism "philosophy" instead of "religion," but in the end there are almost always strongly mystical approaches and arguments involved in teaching the Dharma, and almost every school of Buddhism is seeped in ritual, which is a very important part of religion, and rather an anathema to philosophy.

 

[indian_buddhist]

Whether one views Buddhism as a "religion" or a "philosophy" (or an "anti-philosophy") depends on the style of one's individual practice, I imagine.

There are Vajrayana cults that, to an outside observer not deeply familiar with the twilight language and metaphors involved in that cult's traditions, would look like a Western God-worshipping pagan cult. Most Vajrayana in general his complex ritual systems deeply embedded, as well as substantial discussion surrounding deities, spirits, demons, metaphysical "realms" of existence, etc. This seems to me to be almost inarguably religious. The Buddhist notion of a "god," even in those schools that will talk about such things, is admittedly deeply different from the decidedly Abrahamic Western notion of "God," but that does not mean that both interpretations are not religious.

There is definitely a strong argument in favor of calling certain kinds of deeply aritualized Buddhism "philosophy" instead of "religion," but in the end there are almost always strongly mystical approaches and arguments involved in teaching the Dharma, and almost every school of Buddhism is seeped in ritual, which is a very important part of religion, and rather an anathema to philosophy.

The Vajrayana cult of Dalia lama does not even represent the true teachings of Buddha. They are a corrupted form of Buddhism thanks to Hindu influence and India from where this cult was form.

Authentic forms of Buddhism are Therevada and Mayayana - the great vehicle.

 

[wmjbyatt]

The Vajrayana cult of Dalia lama does not even represent the true teachings of Buddha. They are a corrupted form of Buddhism thanks to Hindu influence and India from where this cult was form.

Authentic forms of Buddhism are Therevada and Mayayana - the great vehicle.

The Dalai Lama has committed himself to the liberation of all suffering beings and to helping to inspire peace (the Dorje Shugden controversy aside). In my mind, this makes him a boddhisatva. I don't really care what individual traditional variations his Tibetan upbringing gives him.

I find it mildly arrogant to think that any one yana has a monopoly on the Dharma.

 

[Me Myself]

According to Theravada I believe, Gautama Siddharta´s("Buddha") wishes weren´t even in the line of making a "religion"

He made a method for ending pain in your life.

Along with what he said was: take what works for you leave what doesn´t (of his teachings or anybody else´s)

As I understand it he didn´t say there were no gods, it´s just that they weren´t important for us to trascend suffering. He still believed in a lot of hinduist ideas, you still got the asuras and the devas, karma, reincarnation. This were facts for him, but his technique of how to deal with them (or not) was what was new.

 

[indian_buddhist]

According to Theravada I believe, Gautama Siddharta´s("Buddha") wishes weren´t even in the line of making a "religion"

He made a method for ending pain in your life.

Along with what he said was: take what works for you leave what doesn´t (of his teachings or anybody else´s)

As I understand it he didn´t say there were no gods, it´s just that they weren´t important for us to trascend suffering. He still believed in a lot of hinduist ideas, you still got the asuras and the devas, karma, reincarnation. This were facts for him, but his technique of how to deal with them (or not) was whata was new.

It is unbelievable when new converts from West think Buddhism and Brahmanim(euphemism for Hinduism) are the same.

Let me make the facts clear:
1. Buddha rejected creator God, sustainer God and rejected all forms of God predestination........Hinduism is all about Gods from 1 God to 330 million Gods.
2. Buddha rejected Soul. Hinduism cannot survive without concept of Soul.
3. Buddhist law of Karma is different from Hindu law of Karma. Buddhist Karma denies that past lives carry an effect into current life. Past life only determines your birth and nothing more.
4. Buddha rejected rites, rituals, priesthood, superstitions . Hinduism is Rites, Rituals, Superstitions.
5. Buddha rejected efficacy of scriptures especially Vedas. I dont know a Hindu belief without Vedas.
6. Buddha rejected Caste System. Hinduism cannot survive without Caste System.
7. Buddha rejected this notion of listening to parents and elders.....Buddha said do what you deem to feel good not what others tell you or tradition tells you to do......Hindu Myths and stories(Ramayana) are all about how Sons are supposed to listen to their father even if the Father is wrong-example Ram going to jungle only to satisfy his father.
8. Buddha actively asked his followers to Reason out his teachings........Hinduism will fall flat if its followers begin to reason out Hinduism.
9. In Buddhism anyone can become a Monk at any time of his life........In Hinduism one is ALWAYS suppsed to follow the 4 stages of life....namely Student, Householder artnd then Monk........A hindu can only become a Monk when he is old.
10. In Buddhism - ANY MAN can become a Monk irrespective of his caste,creed etc. Further Woman can become Monk.......In Hinduism only Brahmin caste can become Sanyasis further ONLY Men can become sanyasis.

In every way Buddhism is ANTITHESIS of Hinduism.......It amazes me when some new followers compare the 2 and state they are similar.......

I was a Hindu before I converted to Buddhism........I can make out the differences........the differences are WIDE APART and opposite of each other.

 

[Me Myself]

It is unbelievable when new converts from West think Buddhism and Brahmanim(euphemism for Hinduism) are the same.

Let me make the facts clear:
1. Buddha rejected creator God, sustainer God and rejected all forms of God predestination........Hinduism is all about Gods from 1 God to 330 million Gods.
2. Buddha rejected Soul. Hinduism cannot survive without concept of Soul.
3. Buddhist law of Karma is different from Hindu law of Karma. Buddhist Karma denies that past lives carry an effect into current life. Past life only determines your birth and nothing more.
4. Buddha rejected rites, rituals, priesthood, superstitions . Hinduism is Rites, Rituals, Superstitions.
5. Buddha rejected efficacy of scriptures especially Vedas. I dont know a Hindu belief without Vedas.
6. Buddha rejected Caste System. Hinduism cannot survive without Caste System.


In every way Buddhism is ANTITHESIS of Hinduism.......It amazes me when some new followers compare the 2 and state they are similar.......

I was a Hindu before I converted to Buddhism........I can make out the differences........the differences are WIDE APART and opposite of each other.

And with all that Siddharta is still considered a posible Avatar of Vishnu.

There is more than one Hindu school. Buddha denied knowledge of alot of things you say he say he knew there was not.

An example of buddhism talking about the indeed existence of some Hindu concepts:

Can you see the Devas and Asuras pointed at there?

-truth is the same, sages call it by different names.

-Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself

"no soul" can be the same as "eternal soul". this is because this are mere pointers to the moon, not the moon itself. The moon itself cannot be expressed in words. Two fingers in completely different parts of the world can signal the same moon and be pointing at opposite directions one from the other.One points to the south another one to the north. But they are not pointing south or north, they are pointing moon.


Even further, buddha talked about not trying to figure out too much about the universe creation and such with his parabole of the poisonous arrow.

 

[indian_buddhist]

And with all that Siddharta is still considered a posible Avatar of Vishnu.

There is more than one Hindu school. Buddha denied knowledge of alot of things you say he say he knew there was not.

An example of buddhism talking about the indeed existence of some Hindu concepts:

Can you see the Devas and Asuras pointed at there?

-truth is the same, sages call it by different names.

-Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself

"no soul" can be the same as "eternal soul". this is because this are mere pointers to the moon, not the moon itself. The moon itself cannot be expressed in words. Two fingers in completely different parts of the world can signal the same moon and be pointing at opposite directions one from the other.One points to the south another one to the north. But they are not pointing south or north, they are pointing moon.


Even further, buddha talked about not trying to figure out too much about the universe creation and such with his parabole of the poisonous arrow.

Dont give me Tibetian nonsense.....I already told you it is a corrupt form of Buddhism.......SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURES OF BUDDHA AND WHAT BUDDHA HAS HIMSELF SAID......

NOT WHAT DALAI LAMA HAS SAID.

Hope I am clear.

Authentic form of Buddhism is BUDDHAS WORDS IN SCRIPTURES..........NOT DALAI LAMAS NONSENSE.

 

[indian_buddhist]

And with all that Siddharta is still considered a posible Avatar of Vishnu.

There is more than one Hindu school. Buddha denied knowledge of alot of things you say he say he knew there was not.

An example of buddhism talking about the indeed existence of some Hindu concepts:

Can you see the Devas and Asuras pointed at there?

-truth is the same, sages call it by different names.

-Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself

"no soul" can be the same as "eternal soul". this is because this are mere pointers to the moon, not the moon itself. The moon itself cannot be expressed in words. Two fingers in completely different parts of the world can signal the same moon and be pointing at opposite directions one from the other.One points to the south another one to the north. But they are not pointing south or north, they are pointing moon.


Even further, buddha talked about not trying to figure out too much about the universe creation and such with his parabole of the poisonous arrow.

I BEG TO YOU WITH FOLDED HANDS.............DO NOT CORRUPT THE TEACHINGS OF BUDDHA.

BUDDHA ALL HIS LIFE OF 35 YEARS FOUGHT AGAINST THE BRAHMIN reliion.......Read the scriptures and not what Dalai lama tells you.

You are calling a Pure as a Milk teaching to a religion straight from hell with all its Caste system and rital nonsense as same.

Please dont do this.....If you dont understand something keep QUIET.


If you are a Hindu.........I can only tell you dont do this ignorant thing.

 

[indian_buddhist]

According to Theravada I believe, Gautama Siddharta´s("Buddha") wishes weren´t even in the line of making a "religion"

He made a method for ending pain in your life.

Along with what he said was: take what works for you leave what doesn´t (of his teachings or anybody else´s)

As I understand it he didn´t say there were no gods, it´s just that they weren´t important for us to trascend suffering. He still believed in a lot of hinduist ideas, you still got the asuras and the devas, karma, reincarnation. This were facts for him, but his technique of how to deal with them (or not) was what was new.

REINCARNATION????????/........Lol you need to study more dear Hindu before you start talking some more nonsense.

THERE IS NO REINCARNATION in Buddhism........Only Rebirth.....UNDERSTAND the difference between the two before you start talking.

 

[Me Myself]

I BEG TO YOU WITH FOLDED HANDS.............DO NOT CORRUPT THE TEACHINGS OF BUDDHA.

BUDDHA ALL HIS LIFE OF 35 YEARS FOUGHT AGAINST THE BRAHMIN reliion.......Read the scriptures and not what Dalai lama tells you.

You are calling a Pure as a Milk teaching to a religion straight from hell with all its Caste system and rital nonsense as same.

Please dont do this.....If you dont understand something keep QUIET.


If you are a Hindu.........I can only tell you dont do this ignorant thing.

You clearly need to meditate alot more if some posts in a RF page enrage you this way

Buddha himself said not to believe anyone no matter his title, chaste, wisdom, age, or even if that person is himself Buddha.

so I care little that you preach knowing the buddha message better than anyone and you are so proud to say your interpretation is pure and that everyone else´s is tainted and that no one should preach and only your version should be followed.

All that you expose in your attitude goes against the teachings of the buddha, even if you believe you understand the written words of his dogma.

I presented you arguments and you puked self-righteousness.

I advice you to chill.

 

[indian_buddhist]

And with all that Siddharta is still considered a posible Avatar of Vishnu.

There is more than one Hindu school. Buddha denied knowledge of alot of things you say he say he knew there was not.

An example of buddhism talking about the indeed existence of some Hindu concepts:

Can you see the Devas and Asuras pointed at there?

-truth is the same, sages call it by different names.

-Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself

"no soul" can be the same as "eternal soul". this is because this are mere pointers to the moon, not the moon itself. The moon itself cannot be expressed in words. Two fingers in completely different parts of the world can signal the same moon and be pointing at opposite directions one from the other.One points to the south another one to the north. But they are not pointing south or north, they are pointing moon.


Even further, buddha talked about not trying to figure out too much about the universe creation and such with his parabole of the poisonous arrow.

More than meditation Buddhism is all about Rationality. Buddha himself was a great rationalist.......That is why Buddha denied existence of God, Soul, castesystem etc.

And BTW, is NO -SOUL = ETERNAL SOUL???

You can never be a Buddhist who says that NO-SOUL = ETERNAL SOUL.

There can never be a more irrational thought than that.......and Buddhism is all about RATIONALITY more than meditation.

 

[Me Myself]

More than meditation Buddhism is all about Rationality. Buddha himself was a great rationalist.......That is why Buddha denied existence of God, Soul, castesystem etc.

And BTW, is NO -SOUL = ETERNAL SOUL???

You can never be a Buddhist who says that NO-SOUL = ETERNAL SOUL.

There can never be a more irrational thought than that.......and Buddhism is all about RATIONALITY more than meditation.

Are you trolling? how many times should you quote my same post? I made a new one, hopefully you´ll wake up.

You clearly need to meditate alot more if some posts in a RF page enrage you this way

Buddha himself said not to believe anyone no matter his title, chaste, wisdom, age, or even if that person is himself Buddha.

so I care little that you preach knowing the buddha message better than anyone and you are so proud to say your interpretation is pure and that everyone else´s is tainted and that no one should preach and only your version should be followed.

All that you expose in your attitude goes against the teachings of the buddha, even if you believe you understand the written words of his dogma.

I presented you arguments and you puked self-righteousness.

I advice you to chill.

 

[Me Myself]

I read the last post of this Indian Buddhist even if it was deleted.

I do not deserved to be called an Idiot as he did call me and I demand justice.

There is certain amount of respect that must be mantained and he crossed it by far.

 

[indian_buddhist]

I read the last post of this Indian Buddhist even if it was deleted.

I do not deserved to be called an Idiot as he did call me and I demand justice.

There is certain amount of respect that must be mantained and he crossed it by far.

Yeah Cry for justice even if you called NO-SOUL = ETErNAL SOUL.......I will call you an idiot again.

 

[Me Myself]

Yeah Cry for justice even if you called NO-SOUL = ETErNAL SOUL.......I will call you an idiot again.

I do see that

 

[indian_buddhist]

I do see that

Please understand me , I know i was rude but please try to understand the circumstance from where I am coming from.

In the entire history of Buddhism, the Hindus have always tried to distort facts and claims and tried to insert stuff into Buddhism to suit their claims.

Here are some of the lies which Hindus do to Buddhism:

1. Lie #1:
The Buddha was Indian, A Hindu and Kshatriya by Birth.

FACT: The Buddha was NOT AN INDIAN. He was born in Kapilavastu of Sakya Kingdom which is traced to Modern day Lumbini in Nepal. The Sakyas are people of Mongoloid ethnicity (similar to Chinese, Nepali) and are not Indo-Aryans. The Sakya Community can even today be found in Nepal and they dont resemble Indians in any way.
Further the Sakyas were according to Buddhist scriptures an Independent republic and are not part of the Brahmin kingdoms of those days.
So the Buddha was a Nepali and not an Indian and he definately was not a Hindu.

2. Lie #2:
Buddha is an avator of Hindu God Vishnu

FACT: Buddha rejected a Creator God or a Sustainer God or a supreme God. Vishnu of Hinduism is all of these according to different sects of Hinduism. Buddha rejected this. To claim that Buddha was an avator of Visnu would be ridiculous for a Buddhist. Just like a Muslim would get incensed if someone said that Mohammed was a God , or a christian would get anry if someone said that Jesus was not Son of God.

But Hindus dare not say that to a Muslim or Christian for they know the consequences.......But they do it to Buddhists because they know that Buddhists are peaceful people.......But frankly I am ready to tolerate things but if someone diabolically twists the facts by calling Buddha a God i cannot tolerate it.

3. Lie #3:
Buddha is a Branch of Hinduism or Buddhism was born OUT of Hinduism or Buddhism borrowed concepts from Hinduism.

FACT: Nothing can be further away from the Truth. As I have already mentioned in my previous posts that all of Buddhist teachings are quite the ANTITHESES Of Hinduism. There is NOT ONE , not one aspect of Hinduism which is present in Buddhism including the Doctrine of Karma . The Doctrine of Karma in Buddhism differs greatly from the Hindu doctrine of Karma. The Hindu doctrine is Fatalistic whereas the Buddhist one is not.


The reason I got angry with you is (I dont know if you are a Hindu) because TILL THIS DAY Hindus try to twist the facts and truths and try to modify the Original historical Buddha and his teachings and this is irriating to all Buddhists.

I am a Buddhist livin in India. Once my Mom invited a Brahmin priest to do a ritual in our house and my Mom told the Brahmin priest that my Son is a Buddhist. Then the Brahmin guy replied : Dont worry sister, Buddhism is nothing but Hinduism . I obviously got angry and argued with him and he humbly accepted the facts and agreed with me.

Nothing more. I apologize if I offended but let me assure you it was not intentional.

METTA.