I have a question for Buddhists

[ChristineES]

I hope you don't find it offensive. I am just wondering if Buddhists have a diety or not.
Although I am a Christian, I found that some of Buddha's ideals are very good ones, and that I could believe in some of them and still remain a Christian. (I learned a little about Buddha in a Philosophy class I took a while back. )

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am a Hindu and not a Buddhist. But I respect the philosophies of other indic religions, Jainism and Buddhism. You can find a good description of Buddhist regulations about food at http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food.htm. Jainism, which came up a few years earlier than Buddhism was very strong on vegetarianism and made non-violence its central theme (Mahavira who established Jainism was much more radical in all his views). In Hinduism, vegetarianism is a must for those who are on a spiritual quest. Hinduism came up by mingling of two streams, the Vedic Aryans and the other indegenous philosophies. Vedic Aryans were non-vegetarians. Hinduism does not restrict Kshatriyas and Shudras (warriors and workers) if they take non-vegetarian food. Whether Brahmins or Vaishyas (priests and traders) would take non-vegetarian food depends on the particular tradition of their group (caste), some do, some do not, generally they don't.

 

[finnor]

i dont think he meant diet, i could be wrong but im assuming he meant diety, like a being to look up to. obviously there are the people who have reached enlightenment, and im no expert on buddhism, but in my opinion it seems contradictory to constantly look up to those who have reached enlightenment and still be a buddhist. The path is ours to follow, and the teachings of those who have been enlightened are great, but mimicing them tooth and nail contradicts the inner searching we all need. if im wrong or someone disagrees thats fine, like i said, im no expert, thats just my opinion at this moment.

 

[James the Persian]

Buddhism is essentially agnostic about deity - it is of no consequence to Buddhism whether one exosts or not. In other words you could believe in a deity and still be Buddhist. However, speaking as an ex-Buddhist Orthodox Christian, I don't see how you can really combine the two - unless all you mean by 'believe in' is, 'believe that He exists'. In those terms, however, I might as well call myself a satanist (as I believe he exists) even though I do not follow him. Belief in salvation through Christ is completely inimicable to Buddhist ideas of karma.

I still se an awful lot of good in Buddhism, and if I weren't Orthodox I'd almost certainly still be one, but despite Buddhism's attitude to deity, I simply cannot see how the two can usefully be combined. The soteriologies (if such a thing can be said to even exist for Buddhism - it's imprecise at best) are just too utterly different.

James

 

[ChristineES]

I am sorry, I did mean deity. Thanks for the answers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Initially there were no deities in Jainism or Buddhism, there were realized (who understood the mystery of life) people and teachers. Naturally they were revered. Later, they transformed into sort of deities for some people. It is in Hinduism that you have Gods and Godesses, though even here it is not necessary to subscribe to any. Strict Advaitists (non-dualists, and I am one) would not have deities, though they would not object to others worshiping deities. What goes for me may not go for all others. Hinduism understands this, and has freedom of personal belief.

 

[Engyo]

Hello, Christine -

Buddhism is generally thought of as a non-theistic religion. There are beings called gods, but they are as unenlightened as humans are, and they are not the focus of Buddhist practice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even in Mahayana, Buddha is not really a God.

 

[koan]

A deity, is only another plane of existance.

 

[Vfr]

I hope you don't find it offensive. I am just wondering if Buddhists have a diety or not.
Although I am a Christian, I found that some of Buddha's ideals are very good ones, and that I could believe in some of them and still remain a Christian. (I learned a little about Buddha in a Philosophy class I took a while back. )

Pure land Buddhists deify Buddha. Other Buddhists vary. Some deify, some do not.

Buddha was a man and not as God.



Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher

 

[koan]

Pure land does not Deify Buddha. They look to another Buddha, Amitabha, rather than Shakyamuni Buddha. In higher levels of Pure Land practice, Amitabha can be realised as another aspect of the mind.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Christine, sorry for the late entry here from a fellow Buddhist.

Buddhism tends to place little emphasis on personal sets of beliefs and is generally thought of more so as a practice, method, or philosophy than on what could be regarded as myths. Each school of Buddhism at the very least respects the Three Jewels of Refuge, the Three Dharma Seals, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path.

With respect to certain beliefs of deities, Buddhism usually takes the stand that allegiance to any one or set of gods/goddesses is not necessary for enlightenment or salvation. It is the practice outlined by the Dharma that gets us there.

As a fellow friend who is a Baptist minister once told me, "Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent." I couldn't agree more. Belief in a god or deity is only fodder for commentary, fwiw.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[vandervalley]

Pure land Buddhists deify Buddha. Other Buddhists vary. Some deify, some do not.

Buddha was a man and not as God.

Buddha was not simply a "man". He was the teacher of people and Gods/gods and worthy of respect.

Another thing is that many non-buddhists think that buddhists worship idols. This is not true. Statue of Buddhas and Bhodisattavas are there to help people concentrate and avoid "sinful" thoughts when practicing buddhsim.

 

[lilithu]

I hope you don't find it offensive. I am just wondering if Buddhists have a diety or not.
Although I am a Christian, I found that some of Buddha's ideals are very good ones, and that I could believe in some of them and still remain a Christian. (I learned a little about Buddha in a Philosophy class I took a while back. )

That's cool.

As Engyo said, there are multiple deities in Buddhism (at least in its original form) but there no God. The deities are just beings with powers that we do not have, kind of like Zeus and Hermes. Even the Hindu Brahman is still just another being. Belief in them will not help you attain nibbana. And in fact, attachment to them will hinder nibbana.

Therefore, I think it would be very hard to merge Christianity with Buddhism. However, if you simply want to adopt some of the Buddhist ideals that you find useful while remaining Christian, there should be no problem with that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lilithu: 'Even the Hindu Brahman is still just another being.' Brahman is not a being. It is not a God. You are confusing Brahman with Brahma, one of the trinity of hindu Gods, which includes Vishnu and Shiva. That is a different concept. Brahman does not interfere in human affairs, it does not require worship, it does not grant boons, it does not judge human actions. Brahman is the substrate which constitutes everything in the universe. The farthest you can go towards understanding Brahman is that it is like 'quantum field'. It constitutes the living beings (including humans), it constitutes the vegetation, it constitutes the non-living things. As they say it is 'one without a second' (Ekameva Adwiteeyam) or 'all creation is Brahman' (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma).

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Lilithu: 'Even the Hindu Brahman is still just another being.' Brahman is not a being. It is not a God. You are confusing Brahman with Brahma, one of the trinity of hindu Gods, which includes Vishnu and Shiva. That is a different concept. Brahman does not interfere in human affairs, it does not require worship, it does not grant boons, it does not judge human actions. Brahman is the substrate which constitutes everything in the universe. The farthest you can go towards understanding Brahman is that it is like 'quantum field'. It constitutes the living beings (including humans), it constitutes the vegetation, it constitutes the non-living things. As they say it is 'one without a second' (Ekameva Adwiteeyam) or 'all creation is Brahman' (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma).

That sounds very close to the concept of sunyata, which can be thought of as "dependent arising." Am I wrong?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[lilithu]

Lilithu: 'Even the Hindu Brahman is still just another being.' Brahman is not a being. It is not a God. You are confusing Brahman with Brahma, one of the trinity of hindu Gods, which includes Vishnu and Shiva. That is a different concept. Brahman does not interfere in human affairs, it does not require worship, it does not grant boons, it does not judge human actions. Brahman is the substrate which constitutes everything in the universe. The farthest you can go towards understanding Brahman is that it is like 'quantum field'. It constitutes the living beings (including humans), it constitutes the vegetation, it constitutes the non-living things. As they say it is 'one without a second' (Ekameva Adwiteeyam) or 'all creation is Brahman' (Sarva Khalvidam Brahma).

I am not confusing Brahman with Brahma. I am aware of the difference between the two. I am relating the Buddhist view of Brahman as it was related to me.

Of course, as I recently said in some thread (can't remember which now), since what we call "Hinduism" has changed over the years (partly in response to Buddhism), what is meant by Brahman NOW is likely different than what the Buddha was rejecting during his time. And my teacher may have his own biases. (I personally would love to believe that anatman equals Atman, but several Buddhist scholars have rejected this interpretation.)

And most of the Hindus I know still consider Brahman to be God. Obviously, Hinduism is diverse.

 

[koan]

Shunyata is Emptiness, Everthing is inherently empty. From emptiness due to conditions, form arises. Shunyata/sunyata itself, is not dependent arising.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That sounds very close to the concept of sunyata, which can be thought of as "dependent arising." Am I wrong?

I have not been able to understand the basics of 'dependent origination' (Indra's Jaal?). But I suppose it should be close. After all both the ideas come from the same stock.

Shunyata is Emptiness, Everthing is inherently empty. From emptiness due to conditions, form arises. Shunyata/sunyata itself, is not dependent arising.

Empty of what? Empty of Atta. I have been interacting with buddhist in other forums. What I have heard is that Shunyata is not absence of everything. I am open to corrections.

.. since what we call "Hinduism" has changed over the years (partly in response to Buddhism), what is meant by Brahman NOW is likely different than what the Buddha was rejecting during his time. And my teacher may have his own biases. (I personally would love to believe that anatman equals Atman, but several Buddhist scholars have rejected this interpretation.) And most of the Hindus I know still consider Brahman to be God. Obviously, Hinduism is diverse.

We prefer it that way so that we do not have to follow 2000 BC recepe in 2000 AD. Even in Buddha's time, Brahman did not equal God all the time. Anatman equals atman when you accept 'Brahman' constituting all and deny 'soul'? Yes, most hindus would consider Brahman to be God.

 

[koan]

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.