The Buddha Was NOT Silent On God and Metaphysics

[doppelganger]

Irrelevant.

Correct. This whole debate is irrelevant.

 

[Tathagata]

Correct. This whole debate is irrelevant.

By that standard, this whole site is irrelevant, but it's not. This is a debate on doctrine which is entirely appropriate on a religious debate site.

Please explain to me why a debate on doctrine is inappropriate or irrelevant on a religious debate site.


.

 

[doppelganger]

By that standard, this whole site is irrelevant, but it's not. This is a debate on doctrine which is entirely appropriate on a religious debate site.

Please explain to me why a debate on doctrine is inappropriate or irrelevant on a religious debate site.


.

What is this thing "God" in which Buddah did not profess belief?

 

[zenzero]

Friends Thatagata & dopp,

Both of you are right in your own way about debating on a debate DIR and not debating on a topic which is beyond debating.

Let us understand that any DEBATE has to do with the application of the MIND and Gautama wanted each one of us to STILL that MIND [that also debates], to understand/realize/experience and be THAT! [Thathagat]

Love & rgds

 

[Ozzie]

Friends Thatagata & dopp,

Both of you are right in your own way about debating on a debate DIR and not debating on a topic is is beyond debating.

Let us understand that any DEBATE has to do with the application of the MIND and Gautama wanted each one of us to STILL that MIND [that also debates], to understand/realize/experience and be THAT! [Thathagat]

Love & rgds

The problem with the thread is that Thatagata is deluded through attachment to an atheist stance and must overcome this. I agree with you that Buddha's message is practical application, not intellectual gymnastics.

 

[Tathagata]

The problem with the thread is that Thatagata is deluded through attachment to an atheist stance and must overcome this.

You apparently don't understand either delusion nor attachment because delusion is not the same as attachment. If what I'm saying is true, then how is that delusion? If I repeat it to get a point across, how is that attachment?

Please, don't spew nonsense and insults if you don't even know what you're talking about.

I agree with you that Buddha's message is practical application, not intellectual gymnastics.

If that's the case, all Buddhists should refrain from joining forums, especially debate forums. Ok, gotcha.

 

[Engyo]

Tathagatha -

I'm curious - why would someone else making an observation about your postings (which reflects on the person making the observation far more than on the observed) cause you to feel insulted?

I'm also curious - how do you address feelings of insult with your practice? I'll share my viewpoints on this with you if you are interested.........

 

[Ozzie]

You apparently don't understand either delusion nor attachment because delusion is not the same as attachment. If what I'm saying is true, then how is that delusion? If I repeat it to get a point across, how is that attachment?

Please, don't spew nonsense and insults if you don't even know what you're talking about.

Attachment causes delusion. Yes you are right they are not the same.

If that's the case, all Buddhists should refrain from joining forums, especially debate forums. Ok, gotcha.

Buddhists are welcome to join debate forums but attachment to a stance on whether Buddha adopted an an atheist stance or not will not enhance your wisdom. Discussion of your stance might stimulate you to take practical steps on your journey .

 

[Tathagata]

Tathagatha -

I'm curious - why would someone else making an observation about your postings (which reflects on the person making the observation far more than on the observed) cause you to feel insulted?

I'm also curious - how do you address feelings of insult with your practice? I'll share my viewpoints on this with you if you are interested.........

I never said I feel insulted. I said he is making insults, which doesn't necessarily mean I'm affected by them.


.

 

[Tathagata]

Buddhists are welcome to join debate forums but attachment to a stance on whether Buddha adopted an an atheist stance or not will not enhance your wisdom. Discussion of your stance might stimulate you to take practical steps on your journey .

Taking a stance =/= attached to a stance. In fact, I don't even think that's a correct application. Was Buddha attached to the Four Noble Truths?

Not to mention, all of the recent arguments put forth by people here have been ad hominems and thus irrelevant to the argument.

Attack me if you will and say I'm attached, but that does NOT refute my argument. So far, not one person has refuted my argument.

(Even if your assessements of me are correct and I am indeed attached, that is still irrelevant and an ad hominem no matter how true or accurate.)



.

 

[zenzero]

Friends [buddhas & mortals]
Lend me your ears!
I have come to bury the *ego*, not to praise it.
The evil that the *ego* does, lives after it;
The good is oft interred with the bones.

How is this in Shakespearian language, for a change of the background [gestalt]?

Love & rgds

 

[Tathagata]

Funny how he didn't just say "all notions of God," then isn't it? Instead, he went on to list very specific ideas about God.

He said "all such notions" and then listed several of the major concepts of God. However, "all such notions" indicates that he intends to cover all the concepts of God.

If he didn't say it, who did, and why do so many Buddhists claim he did?

They do? I think they just copy and paste that quote from quote websites, but it's not supported by a reference in scripture. Again, if you think it's real, please show me what part of scripture he said that.

Yeah, it is. You're claiming that I don't know how many thousands of theisitc Buddhists are wrong; and further, that the Buddha himself was a bigot. Since bigotry and Enlightenment are incompatible, that would mean that the Buddha wasn't a Buddha at all, which renders your adulation rather pathetic.

So many strawmans and slippery slopes it's unbearable. Anti-Theism =/= Bigotry, that's an equivocation fallacy on your part. Since Anti-Theism isn't bigotry, your whole juvenile rant isn't valid. My simple claim is that Buddha opposed the belief in God and I have shown various scripture passages that explicitly demonstrate this.

No, it isn't. The fact that you haven't hit the target doesn't mean I'm moving it.

Passages from scripture is sufficient proof for the claim that Buddha is an anti-theist according to scripture.

Somehow, I rather doubt that, given your own remarks.

The very fact that I am well aware of such terms proves I already knew about the concepts before hand.

And "sinister" means "left" in Latin. Etymology and meaning are not always identical.

Honest question: has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong in your understanding of the term?

"The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to a god's existence." -- Antitheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Tathagata is basically correct. There isn't much to debate here. Buddha refuted the notion of a creator god and that should be fairly clear.

I'm surprised to see use of weasel words and laughable accusations of Tathagata being too attached. Really, we're all too attached to our own BS but we try to get over it, no?

Buddha said what he said. You don't have to like it or agree with him. Many Buddhists clearly don't.

 

[Tathagata]

Edit.

(Old thread. Ignore.)

 

[Me Myself]

It seems that is has been discussed briefly before, but I want to clarify this once and for all. Many have claimed Buddha was Agnostic and some went so far as to say he was Theistic, with no scriptural evidence to back this up whatsoever. My position is that Buddha was Atheistic and in some cases, Anti-Theistic, but never Agnostic or Theist.

The Buddha's Direct Words from Scripture on the Subject of God

Buddha: "Others think that God is free creator of all things; clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening." [Lankavatara Sutra]

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

Buddha: “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.” [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "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. ...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." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment." [Lankavatara Sutra]

Buddha: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being's act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. "When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." [Tittha Sutta]

Buddha: "Others see the eternally of things in the conception of Nirvana as the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; and some, who are especially silly, declare that there are two primary things, a primary substance and a primary soul, that react differently upon each other and thus produce all things from the transformations of qualities; some think that the world is born of action and interaction and that no other cause is necessary;" [Lankavatara Sutra]


Buddha's Discourse On God, the Absolute, the First Cause, and the Nature of Reality

From the Culla Vagga of the Tipitika:

"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 God, a personal creator? If God 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 God 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 God 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?

(Note: I think he is referring to a supreme spirit/soul [like a Holy Spirit I guess] because in English, "the self" refers to the Hindu notion of a soul [atman].)

"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 God, nor the Absolute, nor the self, no causeless chance, is 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.
^^
(This is a very interesting point.)

"Let us, then, surrender the heresies of worshiping God 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."

[Culla Vagga 6:2]

(Note: For those who think the word "God" wasn't in his vocabulary, the Sanskrit/Pali words for God are "Ishvara" and "Brahma" referring to God/Supreme Being/Lord/Creator/First cause, etc.)

I apologize if the questions is too ignorant but:


What is the origin of the lankavatara sutra? when was the first historical time it was known/compiled? Does all buddhist traditions see it as accurate recolection of Siddharta Buddha´s words?

The same about "Culla Vagga of the Tipitika" and the "Tittha Sutta" please

 

[Tathagata]

I apologize if the questions is too ignorant but:


What is the origin of the lankavatara sutra? when was the first historical time it was known/compiled? Does all buddhist traditions see it as accurate recolection of Siddharta Buddha´s words?

The Lankavatara Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra. These Sutras date back to the 1st century BCE, the same time period as the Tipitaka.

The great Bodhidharma has said:

"I have here the Lankāvatāra in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism."*
-- Bodhidharma [Suzuki, D.T.]

All Buddhists sects except Theravada accept the Mahayana Sutras.

The same about "Culla Vagga of the Tipitika" and the "Tittha Sutta" please

The Culla Vagga comes from the Vinaya Pitaka of the Pali Canon (Tipitaka). Vinaya is the first basket of the Tipitaka, a central text that every sect accepts. The Tittha Sutta comes from the Sutta Pitaka, the second basket of the Tipitaka.

Hope that helps.


.

 

[ratikala]

dear me myself ,

I apologize if the questions is too ignorant but:


What is the origin of the lankavatara sutra? when was the first historical time it was known/compiled? Does all buddhist traditions see it as accurate recolection of Siddharta Buddha´s words?

I am mind full that buddha is allso proported to have said , " look not at the word but atthe meaning"

after all enlightenment comes about by each of us examining and understanding

 

[cablescavenger]

My position is that Buddha was Atheistic and in some cases, Anti-Theistic, but never Agnostic or Theist.

I like the guy more and more. It is like a dissection

 

[arcanum]

Not to take this thread off track but I've often wondered how an atheistic religion like Buddhism could have spread in the ancient world, a world where peoples minds were populated with deities. Can someone explain this to me? I wouldn't think atheism was a very popular concept in the ancient world so what made Buddhism so appealing?

 

[ratikala]

dear arcanum ,

Not to take this thread off track but I've often wondered how an atheistic religion like Buddhism could have spread in the ancient world, a world where peoples minds were populated with deities. Can someone explain this to me? I wouldn't think atheism was a very popular concept in the ancient world so what made Buddhism so appealing?

simplicity

despite what many seem to think , (and I will probably get hammered for saying this ) ,
the buddhas teachings were not overtly atheistic , buddha simply did not teach from a theistic point of veiw ,
the buddha taught a simple system of practical teachings in order to bring the mind of the human being closer to the state of enlightenment ,
this was particularly relevant at the time of the buddhas apperance as the prevailing religious practices of the day had become unnecescarily complex and not accessable to everyone .

if it then spread (as it did) it was because there was a need for it , and it spread and took on different forms as it traveled into different cultures .

thus there are allso different understandings .