The Buddha Was NOT Silent On God and Metaphysics

[Engyo]

Personally, I have not found it skillful to stand up and make declarative statements telling people how wrong they are - it usually makes them defensive, and causes them to cling harder to their wrong views.

It generally seems more productive to help them understand things once they (almost inevitably) reach a conflict point, than it is to try and create the confict point up front.

Just my own opinion, of course. YMMV.

 

[no-body]

I can't find the specific verse but didn't the Buddha also say if something in his teachings doesn't match up to known reality/common sense then you should alter it?

I know I'm probably not the first smart alek to mention this but you realize the irony in clinging so hard to what "Buddhism is really about" right?

 

[Smoke]

What I am interested in is why, exactly, Buddha's view is more important than yours, Odion's or Tathagata's. (Spoiler: There is a lot more to that statement than the casual reading may understand. I am so very wicked....)

It seems paradoxical, but it's not: To be true to Sakyamuni's teaching, it's necessary to move beyond appeals to the authority of Sakyamuni's teaching; it's even necessary to move beyond the teaching itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I have not found it skillful to stand up and make declarative statements telling people how wrong they are - it usually makes them defensive, and causes them to cling harder to their wrong views.

It generally seems more productive to help them understand things once they (almost inevitably) reach a conflict point, than it is to try and create the confict point up front.

Just my own opinion, of course. YMMV.

You are not wrong. But we don't always have a choice. Sometimes situations push one against the wall and we must either deny or confirm others' expectations.

Yes, it is not very skillful to flat out say that people are wrong. But neither is it skillful to remain silent and implicitly confirm seriously wrong understandings. We must take a leap of faith, accept our lack of certainty, and do the best we can regardless.

 

[Random]

It would be absurd to agree that a man as purportedly intelligent and wise as Gautama Buddha was a nihilist. When thinking about God in Buddhist terms, it is best to read between the lines and see what he meant he said in a saying-not-saying kind of way.

 

[Smoke]

I would be absurd to agree that a man as purportedly intelligent and wise as Gautama Buddha was a nihilist.

Nihilism is hardly the only alternative to theism, nor is it noticeably less intelligent or wise than theism.

 

[Tathagata]

I can't find the specific verse but didn't the Buddha also say if something in his teachings doesn't match up to known reality/common sense then you should alter it?

No, he did not, and this is irrelevant. The question isn't whether YOU have to believe in God, it's about what Buddha taught regardless of whether you accept it or not.

I know I'm probably not the first smart alek to mention this but you realize the irony in clinging so hard to what "Buddhism is really about" right?

You have no idea how idiotic this remark is. No one is clinging, I am correcting a wrong view that has been propagated for too long.

Everyone says "Buddha is Agnostic "Buddha is Agnostic" "Buddha was silent on God" "Buddha was Agnostic" " Buddha was silent" etc. etc. Then when I point out that Buddha was NOT an Agnostic and NOT silent on God with scriptural proof, people want to turn around and say that we shouldn't talk about it and think I'm all of a sudden clinging to this.

Maybe peope have clung to the idea that Buddha was Agnostic and silent for far too long.


.

 

[Engyo]

The irony (if you can step back for just a second) is that it is exactly the clinging, the attachment to views of any type, which increases dukkha.

 

[no-body]

No, he did not, and this is irrelevant. The question isn't whether YOU have to believe in God, it's about what Buddha taught regardless of whether you accept it or not.

I don't know for sure but every tv show I've seen on the Buddha mentions it and I've heard the Dali-Lama mention it too and I could swear I've read some scripture where he says it but maybe I'm misremembering. It is only relevant that it allows for different denominations of Buddhism no matter what Buddha actually said.

You have no idea how idiotic this remark is. No one is clinging, I am correcting a wrong view that has been propagated for too long.

Everyone says "Buddha is Agnostic "Buddha is Agnostic" "Buddha was silent on God" "Buddha was Agnostic" " Buddha was silent" etc. etc. Then when I point out that Buddha was NOT an Agnostic and NOT silent on God with scriptural proof, people want to turn around and say that we shouldn't talk about it and think I'm all of a sudden clinging to this.

Maybe peope have clung to the idea that Buddha was Agnostic and silent for far too long.


.

I never said whether the Buddha was agnostic or anything else. Why are you so obsessed with telling other people what to believe?

 

[Smoke]

Maybe peope have clung to the idea that Buddha was Agnostic and silent for far too long.

In Buddhism Without Beliefs, Stephen Batchelor was adamant about his idea that a Buddhist must be an agnostic; atheism is as unskillful as theism. I'll be very interested to see -- when I get around to it -- what he says in his latest book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. I always think militant agnosticism is a little odd.

But I do wonder whether your dedication to dispelling misconceptions about Buddhism and theism -- talking at length about what Buddhism is not -- doesn't tend to obscure what Buddhism is.

My attitude toward theism is that it's futile to try to talk anybody out of it, and that if people decide to practice Buddhism they'll naturally come to see the irrelevance of God, in their own way and in their own time. On the other hand it is important to make it clear that atheism is no obstacle to the practice of Buddhism. The first Buddhist I ever knew, in fact, told me she first became a Buddhist because she felt religious but she just couldn't believe in God.

 

[Tathagata]

The irony (if you can step back for just a second) is that it is exactly the clinging, the attachment to views of any type, which increases dukkha.

Understanding the truth of the Buddhadharma is not clinging unless you want to claim that Buddha "clung" to his own Dharma. Neither is speaking the truth of the Dharma considered clinging.


.

 

[Engyo]

Understanding the truth of the Buddhadharma is not clinging unless you want to claim that Buddha "clung" to his own Dharma. Neither is speaking the truth of the Dharma considered clinging.


.

Peace be unto you, and may your practice prove fruitful.

 

[sandandfoam]

Understanding the truth of the Buddhadharma is not clinging unless you want to claim that Buddha "clung" to his own Dharma. Neither is speaking the truth of the Dharma considered clinging.


.

I read in one of Brad Warners books (Sit down and shut up) about Zen how he believes in God. He's ordained as I undserstand.

"The idea that Buddhism is atheism with a happy face is very attractive to certain types of people. These are usually people who have been raised in very religious families or who for whatever reasons have come to reject religion and the idea of God. On the one hand, if God is defined as a big, huge white man with a long beard and magical powers who sits on a throne somewhere way up in the sky and sends people to hell for not kissing his *** well enough or in just the right way, then Buddhism does not accept belief in that kind of God. Yet every decent Zen teacher I have encountered does believe in God."

 

[Tathagata]

I read in one of Brad Warners books (Sit down and shut up) about Zen how he believes in God. He's ordained as I undserstand.

Problem: Peoples beliefs don't determine the truth of what scripture says.

It's especially ironic that you mention Zen masters who believe in God because most of the quotes where Buddha rejects God come from the Lankavatara Sutra which is the most important Sutra in Zen. That is practically the whole basis of Zen, not to mention Zen tends to be the most Atheistic sect of all Buddhism.

This is what one of the most well-revered Zen Masters D.T. Suzuki, said about Zen:

"When all these deep things are searched out there is after all no "self" where you can descend, there is no "spirit," no "God" whose depths are to be fathomed. Why? Because Zen is a bottomless abyss." -- D.T. Suzuki

And by the way, as your quote suggests, Buddhism does not merely deny the "white beard man in the sky" God. He is clearly lying. If actually read what Buddha said posted on the first page, you will see he rejected all notions of God including "the Absolute."



.

 

[sandandfoam]

Who is lying? Brad Warner?

 

[Tathagata]

Who is lying? Brad Warner?

Is that your way of dodging every point Ive made?

Yes Brad Warner, and it doesn't matter if he's lying or not, the point is he's wrong.


.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not a Buddhist for reasons similar to why YmirGF is not - I need no master or school to follow and I already have all of what they can honestly promise. But as for what Buddah meant, or what "Buddhism" is or is not, I will just say that there is nothing to learn or to grasp. That's just a game that we play. Like playing hide and seek with one's self.

 

[LuisDantas]

I read in one of Brad Warners books (Sit down and shut up) about Zen how he believes in God. He's ordained as I understand.

It is not a matter of lying as much as of genuine divergence. It is very true that Buddhist doctrine has little place for a true concept of God. It does not at all mean that this author is lying, however; he sees fit for some version of the God concept and he is, of course, fully entitled to do so, as long as he accepts responsibility for its use.

It is still true that Buddhism does not revolve around God, and that it may be misleading to assume that the God of Christianity is the same or similar to that of Brad Warners' conception.

That is really more of an opportunity than a problem. Discussing such divergences with good will and respect, one can learn much and find much beauty.

 

[doppelganger]

Nihilism is hardly the only alternative to theism, nor is it noticeably less intelligent or wise than theism.

Theism in many cases may be quite nihilistic. I think it's worth considering that nihilism comes in various forms as well. There are passive nihilists who acknowledge that values are not rooted in some objective and eternal source and end it at that. And there are active nihilists who see that only as a point of departure and liberation and use that liberation to find and embrace their own values. The latter are the artists, spiritual visionaries and great philosophers/scientists whose heresies come to be taken as dogmas (requiring new artists and visionaries to make dehabitualize them and make them real again).

 

[Tathagata]

I'm not a Buddhist for reasons similar to why YmirGF is not - I need no master or school to follow and I already have all of what they can honestly promise.

I consider myself a freethinker, so for me, "Buddhist" is descriptive not prescriptive. I am under no master and no school. I do my own studies.

But as for what Buddah meant,

I'm not disputing what he meant, I'm disputing what he said.

or what "Buddhism" is or is not, I will just say that there is nothing to learn or to grasp. That's just a game that we play. Like playing hide and seek with one's self.

Irrelevant.