Is the Buddha's Dharma really Atheistic?

[Rainbow Mage]

Is it really? Doesn't seem to be from my perspective, or from the perspective of many Theistic Buddhists apparently. Theistic Buddhists, including but not limited to: Pure Land Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists, Tantric Buddhists, some Zen Buddhists, Jewish Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, Muslim Buddhists, Buddhist Bahai's, Hesychasts, Chinese Buddhism, Korean Buddhism, Vietnamese Buddhism. The Dhammapada mentions Indra, Brahman, and the devas. Mahayana texts speak of gods and a Pure Land similar to the Hindu world of gods. Buddhist mythology is chock full of mythology about gods: King Yama, Siva, Ganesha, Tara, Kuan Yin, so on and so on. There's even one about Ganesha converting to Buddhism, lol. So is Buddha-dharma seriously atheistic? How can it be?

 

[Engyo]

It's all about your definition of theism. Or atheism.

If you define atheism as "the word *god* does not appear" then that's one thing.

If you define atheism as "no omnipotent, omnipresent creator god" a la the Abrahamic faiths then that is entirely something else.

Without a strict definition, we can argue all day and not come to any real conclusions.

 

[Smoke]

"After taking his seat Anathapindika expressed a desire to hear a discourse on some religious subject.

"The Blessed Lord responding to his wishes raised the question, Who is it that shapes our lives? Is it Ishavara, a personal creator? If Ishavara be the maker, all living things should have silently to submit to their maker's power. They would be like vessels formed by the potter's hand. If the world had been made by Ishavara there should be no such thing as sorrow, or calamity, or sin; for both pure and impure deeds must come from him. If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be the self-existent one. Thus, you see, the thought of Ishavara is overthrown.

"Again, it is said that the Absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then certainly it does not make them.

"Again, it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did he not make things pleasing? The cases of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?

"Again, if you adopt the argument, there is no maker, or fate in such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?

"Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without a cause. However, neither Ishavara, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, it the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil.

"The whole world is under the law of causation, and the causes that act are not un-mental, for the gold of which the cup is made is gold throughout.

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshipping Ishavara and praying to him; let us not lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions."

From The Buddha and His Dharma, by B.R. Ambedkar, pp. 147-148.

 

[Smoke]

Sakyamuni didn't deny the existence of devas; he denied their relevance. There was no creator God. The devas were mortal beings, subject to delusion and death. It was unskillful to worship devas and pray to them; a member of the Sangha was to follow the eightfold path, not get caught up in delusions about devas.

So yes, you can say that Buddhism is theistic in the sense that Sakyamuni didn't deny the existence of devas and that in some expressions of Buddhism the worship of devas has been resumed. But you cannot say that Buddhism is theistic in the sense that the worship of devas is an intrinsic or necessary aspect of Buddhism. Whether the devas exist or not is irrelevant to the Buddha-dharma. If a Buddhist believes in devas or does not believe in devas, or has no opinion about devas, it's neither here nor there. The point is that he practices the Dharma.

To say that because many Buddhists are theists, Buddha-dharma is theistic, is like saying that because many Buddhists are Vietnamese, Buddha-dharma is Vietnamese. It's like saying that because many Buddhists are women, Buddha-dharma is feminine. It's like saying that because many Buddhists ring bells, Buddha-dharma is bell-ringing. It is, in other words, to completely miss the point.

 

[Tathagata]

There is absolutely no doubt that Buddha Dharma is Atheistic. Btw, devas are not gods. Theyre mortals that die, and Buddha constantly mocked them for being "immersed in ignorance."

Here's where Buddha denied God.

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "All such notions [of a]...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "This position rises the question of a first cause which the philosophers meet by asserting that their first cause, God and the primal elements, are un-born and un-annihilate; which position is without evidence and is irrational.”

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "Again, Mahamati, some philosophers owing to their foolishness declare this to be Nirvana: that there is a primary substance, there is a supreme soul, and they are seen differently by each, and that they produce all things from the transformations of the qualities."

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "In this same class the disciples are the earnest disciples of other faiths, who clinging to the notions of such things as, the soul as an external entity, Supreme Atman, Personal God, seek a [belief] that is in harmony with them. There are others, more materialistic in their ideas, who think that all things exist in dependence upon causation and, therefore, that Nirvana must be in like dependence. But none of these, earnest though they be, have gained an insight into the truth of the twofold egolessness and are, therefore, of limited spiritual insights as regards deliverance and non-deliverance; for them there is no emancipation. They have great self-confidence but they can never gain a true knowledge of Nirvana."

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "They do not realize that things have nothing to do with qualify and qualifying, nor with the course of birth, abiding and destruction, and instead they assert that they are born of a Creator, of time, of atoms, of some celestial spirit. It is because the ignorant are given up to discrimination that they move along with the stream of appearances, but it is not so with the wise."


.

 

[Smoke]

There is absolutely no doubt that Buddha Dharma is Atheistic. Btw, devas are not gods. Theyre mortals that die, Buddha constantly mocked them as well for being "immersed in ignorance."

Well, that's the thing. Even Buddhists who believe in devas and pray to devas, which is not properly part of the Buddhadharma, aren't theists in the sense that Abrahamic believers are theists. Even Hindus, who have no problem calling the devas gods, don't understand God the way Abrahamic believers do.

And I hear a lot about Buddhists being theists, but the interesting thing is that I always hear it from people who are not Buddhists. When I go to a dharma talk, I never hear anybody talk about God or the Gods. No matter what sect is sponsoring the talk, the teacher never mentions God or Brahma or Ma'at or Thor or Ganesha or Zeus. Never. There's one sect that places a great emphasis on a being they consider to be a dharma protector -- an emphasis that I consider unhealthy and unwise, personally -- but even they don't consider their dharma protector a god. Pure Land places a great emphasis on Amitabha, to the extent that Amitabha is a kind of savior, but even Amitabha is not a god.

Sometimes if you read about Tibetan Buddhism, you get the impression that Vajrayana is just paganism in Buddhist dress. Vajrayana Buddhists believe in all these gods and spirits, and pray to this one and that one, and that may be true to some extent. But when I attend one of their Dharma talks, or talk to their practitioners, they never mention any of that. They talk about meditation, about karma, about mindfulness. They never say, "Now we're going to pray to Green Tara." Maybe they do among themselves; I don't know. But I've never seen any indication from talking to them or listening to them or reading their books that the worship of gods is something they consider central to Buddhism. I've never even heard Vajrayana worship of gods mentioned, except by people who are not Vajrayana. So how central can it be? How long can you attend a Christian church without hearing some mention of God? Not long.

I think people read things into Buddhism sometimes because they're trying to relate Buddhism to their own beliefs, so they take what's important to them and try to find a Buddhist analog of it. They create a distorted picture of Buddhism, because they're not trying to understand Buddhism in Buddhist terms, they're trying to understand Buddhism in their own terms.

I don't say that no Buddhists are theists, because some Buddhists are theists, or at least are comfortable using theistic language. Thich Nhat Hanh talks about God. But I don't think Thich Nhat Hanh means what Christians sometimes think he means.

I do say that for the Buddhist theism is superfluous, and I do say that a "theistic" Buddhist is not a Western-style theist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it really?

More like agnostic, really, with some slight variations. But it is never much of a Theistic religion, that´s for sure, except perhaps for some syncretisms with Hinduism and Shinto that aren´t really much like Buddhism.

Doesn't seem to be from my perspective, or from the perspective of many Theistic Buddhists apparently.

By definition that would be true... but I fear that only hints of misunderstanding about the Dharma.

[quote Theistic Buddhists, including but not limited to: Pure Land Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists, Tantric Buddhists, some Zen Buddhists, Jewish Buddhists, Christian Buddhists, Muslim Buddhists, Buddhist Bahai's, Hesychasts, Chinese Buddhism, Korean Buddhism, Vietnamese Buddhism.[/quote]

Whoa, hold it for a moment. Half those groups I never heard of (Buddhism isn´t really compatible with Christianism, Islam, Judaism or even the Bahai Faith, although many people from those faiths, particularly Bahais, seem to think otherwise). Chan, Zen, Pure Land and Tibetan Vajrayana really aren´t at all Theistic, although the confusion may present itself at first glance in Vajrayana and even Pure Land. Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism aren´t all that different from Theravada and Zen from what I hear. Hesychasts I never heard about.

The Dhammapada mentions Indra, Brahman, and the devas.

And goes on to show that they aren´t even enlightned, much less Gods.

Mahayana texts speak of gods and a Pure Land similar to the Hindu world of gods.

Which are clearly established as parables and mental states, not literal truths.

Buddhist mythology is chock full of mythology about gods: King Yama, Siva, Ganesha, Tara, Kuan Yin, so on and so on.

Indeed. But not in any way that encourages literal belief in them as Gods.

There's even one about Ganesha converting to Buddhism, lol. So is Buddha-dharma seriously atheistic? How can it be?

The whole trick is not over-valuing the concept of God, really.

I didn´t know about Ganesha adopting the Buddhadharma. Where is that mentioned?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Jewish Buddhists, Christian Buddhist? What's that?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don´t know about Jewish Buddhists, but quite a few people (mostly New Age-inclined) do claim to follow both Christianity and Buddhism at the same time to some extent.

I´m not sure what they mean, myself.

 

[Engyo]

Actually, I think Ju-Bu's (their name, not mine) are more common than Buddhist Christians, unless you call a Christian who has adopted meditative practices (without actually taking refuge) a Buddhist Christian.

 

[Smoke]

Hesychasts I never heard about.

Hesychasm is Christian -- specifically, Eastern Orthodox. The hesychast mystical tradition has a few advocates in Western Christianity, especially among Uniates, but Western Christianity simply doesn't have the theological underpinnings that are necessary for hesychasm.

Some people have compared hesychastic prayer to Eastern practices of meditation and yoga, and there are some similarities, but they're not as great as some people make them out to be. The practice is similar in many respects, but what hesychasts believe they're doing and what yogis or Zen Buddhists believe they're doing is not the same thing at all.

In any event, hesychasm is a distinctly Christian phenomenon, and the fact that hesychasts are theists has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism.

 

[Tathagata]

@Senedjem

You make the mistake of using the beliefs of Buddhist sects to determine what Buddha Dharma is. The real question is, what does BUDDHIST SCRIPTURE say and find out if it is Atheistic.

As you can see by the various passages provided by myself and Smoke, Buddha explicitly rejected God on all accounts.


.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

@Senedjem

You make the mistake of using the beliefs of Buddhist sects to determine what Buddha Dharma is. The real question is, what does BUDDHIST SCRIPTURE say and find out if it is Atheistic.

As you can see by the various passages provided by myself and Smoke, Buddha explicitly rejected God on all accounts.


.

I agree with this. Im not sure if I would label Christianity with some Buddhist practices as a form of Buddhism. If you want to know what Buddhism feels about this subject, I agree with Tathagata, go strait to the scriptures.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Well, that's the thing. Even Buddhists who believe in devas and pray to devas, which is not properly part of the Buddhadharma, aren't theists in the sense that Abrahamic believers are theists. Even Hindus, who have no problem calling the devas gods, don't understand God the way Abrahamic believers do.

And I hear a lot about Buddhists being theists, but the interesting thing is that I always hear it from people who are not Buddhists. When I go to a dharma talk, I never hear anybody talk about God or the Gods. No matter what sect is sponsoring the talk, the teacher never mentions God or Brahma or Ma'at or Thor or Ganesha or Zeus. Never. There's one sect that places a great emphasis on a being they consider to be a dharma protector -- an emphasis that I consider unhealthy and unwise, personally -- but even they don't consider their dharma protector a god. Pure Land places a great emphasis on Amitabha, to the extent that Amitabha is a kind of savior, but even Amitabha is not a god.

Sometimes if you read about Tibetan Buddhism, you get the impression that Vajrayana is just paganism in Buddhist dress. Vajrayana Buddhists believe in all these gods and spirits, and pray to this one and that one, and that may be true to some extent. But when I attend one of their Dharma talks, or talk to their practitioners, they never mention any of that. They talk about meditation, about karma, about mindfulness. They never say, "Now we're going to pray to Green Tara." Maybe they do among themselves; I don't know. But I've never seen any indication from talking to them or listening to them or reading their books that the worship of gods is something they consider central to Buddhism. I've never even heard Vajrayana worship of gods mentioned, except by people who are not Vajrayana. So how central can it be? How long can you attend a Christian church without hearing some mention of God? Not long.

I think people read things into Buddhism sometimes because they're trying to relate Buddhism to their own beliefs, so they take what's important to them and try to find a Buddhist analog of it. They create a distorted picture of Buddhism, because they're not trying to understand Buddhism in Buddhist terms, they're trying to understand Buddhism in their own terms.

I don't say that no Buddhists are theists, because some Buddhists are theists, or at least are comfortable using theistic language. Thich Nhat Hanh talks about God. But I don't think Thich Nhat Hanh means what Christians sometimes think he means.

I do say that for the Buddhist theism is superfluous, and I do say that a "theistic" Buddhist is not a Western-style theist.

Nail on the head. I have always thought of Buddhism as Agnostic. Not needing to deal with God at all.

At the sametime the Buddhas seem to have some "God like" powers.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Actually, I think Ju-Bu's (their name, not mine) are more common than Buddhist Christians, unless you call a Christian who has adopted meditative practices (without actually taking refuge) a Buddhist Christian.

Does this mean that such persons must empty their minds of all thoughts to do the meditation process?

 

[Engyo]

There are lots of different meditative practices. Emptying the mind is one, but only one. Following the breath is another very common one. Reciting a mantra is another common one.

One may also meditate on a certain subject. The choice of subject is up to the meditator, unless participating in a group guided meditation.

Some meditative practices have a specific goal (such as to develop or increase one's compassion); and others have more general goals, whether that may be relaxation, inner peace and harmony, general spiritual development or others.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Senedjem,

Is the Buddha's Dharma really Atheistic?

Personal understanding:
Dharma is universal and simply means the laws of existence.
Buddha means the one who is no more as an individual or as a separate entity.
Rgds the Path or way that Gautama propagated the label *god* was purposely kept out of the picture as he points towards the truth that each individual is part of that *whole* and each one has to understand/realize/experience IT and transcend the very mind that perceives someone or something extraordinary controlling everything.
God is or not is not the question but how far one evolves and transcend to merge with existence IS. When the part merges there remains nothing neither the perceiver or the perceived.

Love & rgds

 

[Tathagata]

Nail on the head. I have always thought of Buddhism as Agnostic.

Please tell me what part of scripture indicates that he is an Agnostic? I hear this myth perpetuated by everyone, Buddhist and non-Buddhist that Buddha was an Agnostic. But there is not one passage where Buddha implied Agnosticism, yet I know of over a dozen passages where Buddha expressed Atheism. (Which you can find on the first page of this thread.)

At the sametime the Buddhas seem to have some "God like" powers.

When asked, Buddha denied that he was a god. His powers were mind powers which were likely over-exaggerations to display that was supremely Enlightened and well trained mind.

In the Pali Canon, he said that mystic wonders are dangerous and that these he "loathe and abhor them, and is ashamed thereof."


.

 

[Copernicus]

It is not really reasonable to generalize Buddhism as atheistic. Buddhism is part of the naastika trend, which rejects the vedic tradition. It is probably the case that the vast majority of Buddhists in the world believe in the existence of beings that most of us would call "gods", but you'll get a lot of tap-dancing around just what the word "god" means by individuals who want to promote one view or another of the religion. You'll also find a lot of Christians whose view of their religion differs from the mainstream. Most Christians consider most Christians to have the wrong view of their religion, although Roman Catholicism wins the numbers game. Theistic buddhists win the numbers game in the world of Buddhism.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well in Buddhism it's that different schools accept and reject different texts Copernicus. It really has no similarity to Christianity. Yes, Catholicism is winning the number game, because fundamentalism makes no sense.