The Buddha Was NOT Silent On God and Metaphysics

[paarsurrey]

dear arcanum ,




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 .

I think what I have coloured in magenta above is correct.

One should not forget here that we have no scripture written down by Buddha or dictated by him; so we cannot ignore his being a believer in one true God.

The thought we get from whatever has been collected from the memory of narrators after lapse of some five hundred years, a plethora of it, impossible to rote it up correctly; his ways do not match with the atheists or agnostics.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think what I have coloured in magenta above is correct.

One should not forget here that we have no scripture written down by Buddha or dictated by him; so we cannot ignore his being a believer in one true God.

I beg your pardon? There is no evidence that he held such a belief. If anything, his teachings sugest otherwise.

The thought we get from whatever has been collected from the memory of narrators after lapse of some five hundred years, a plethora of it, impossible to rote it up correctly; his ways do not match with the atheists or agnostics.

Except that they do, quite perfectly at that.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think what I have coloured in magenta above is correct.

One should not forget here that we have no scripture written down by Buddha or dictated by him; so we cannot ignore his being a believer in one true God.

The thought we get from whatever has been collected from the memory of narrators after lapse of some five hundred years, a plethora of it, impossible to rote it up correctly; his ways do not match with the atheists or agnostics.

Most scholars believe that what is taught in the Pali canon is pretty close to what the Buddha actually taught. And while it's true that he did accept the existence of the Hindu pantheon, he taught that none of them should be worshiped, and that none of them was almighty creator. There's actually nothing to suggest that what is taught in Buddhism, by the Buddhist scriptures, was not taught by the Buddha. The only people who disagree with it are people who it doesn't match their theology. That's fine, but one shouldn't place ideas onto Buddha or Buddhism that it doesn't teach. If you don't like it, stick to your own theology, and stop trying to make Buddhism out to be something it's not.

 

[paarsurrey]

Most scholars believe that what is taught in the Pali canon is pretty close to what the Buddha actually taught. And while it's true that he did accept the existence of the Hindu pantheon, he taught that none of them should be worshiped, and that none of them was almighty creator. There's actually nothing to suggest that what is taught in Buddhism, by the Buddhist scriptures, was not taught by the Buddha. The only people who disagree with it are people who it doesn't match their theology. That's fine, but one shouldn't place ideas onto Buddha or Buddhism that it doesn't teach. If you don't like it, stick to your own theology, and stop trying to make Buddhism out to be something it's not.

I think I didn't say anything about Buddhism.
I said about Buddha that he did not write any scriptures by himself. He also did not dictate anything to anybody.
And I think that is not wrong.

 

[Secret Chief]

The goalposts are NOT on wheels.

 

[gnostic]

I actually tend towards Hinduism more than Buddhism in my own personal research because I find the former to be traditionally more open to interpretation. Buddhism suggests a more "straight and narrow" approach whereas I find the mystical depth of Hinduism intoxicating, and the ritual traditions highly artistic and subject to creative personalization.

The problem that I have is that I don't really like "ritual" because it feel like "going through the motion" for custom's sake. I don't like wasting my time or horsing around with rituals or unnecessary customs, and I'd prefer to "cut to the chase" or "give it to me straight, I can take it!" attitude.

Gee. The last one sounds awful.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ah wonderful. Another Muslim pulling the scriptural corruption card.

Can we all please quit feeding it?

 

[gnostic]

The goalposts are NOT on wheels.

Are you really sure about that?

 

[Breathe]

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?

I know this is al ate reply, but I thought I would like to give my 'piece'.

I'm with ratikala ji on this one; Buddhism spread due to its simplicity. The lack of caste, which seems to harass Hinduism, despite not being a Hindu concept, most likely helped a lot.

Buddhism in the East is not so "atheistic" as in the West; the devas are still, usually, considered as existential beings, whom are frequently worshipped, or are regarded as manifestations of the Dharmakāya. Theravāda Buddhism exists most frequently with Hinduism and/or local animistic religions. Even in Thailand, where about 97% of people are Buddhist, many worship Ganeśa and even Brahmā, whose worship has since declined to almost none in Hindu-majority nations. I always used to ask my Thai friends why they worshipped

In Japan, where roughly about 80% claim Buddhism as their religion, a large chunk of those are Shinto, too, who believe in gods/spirits, and that everything has a soul. In China, they are frequently Shenist, Confucian, and Buddhist; I've seen a few religious Chinese folk praying to Guan Yu (one to Mazu), but not many, since most Chinese I've met have been nominally religious, so it's not like I can ask them in a certain context unless it gets onto the subject.

At the same time, the Buddhism that was most successful was Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its numerous bodhisattvas have fulfilled roles similar to devas for the majority of the population. Pure Land followers probably make up the biggest number of Buddhists; Pure Land was born, and it grew well, probably due to its ease and worship.

Other forms of Buddhism, such as Shingon, Tiantai (Tendai), and Tibetan Buddhism also use divinities, local and/or imported from Hinduism, and they speak of Dharmakāya and sometimes even Adibuddha in ways that can appear like theism, and probably, in all honesty, borders upon nondual pantheism; I've met a few Shingon followers, and they said they saw the Dharmakāya as "like the Christian God".

Zen is also popular, because of its focus on simplicity.

Then, we have the West; Zen is the most popular form of Buddhism in the West.

It was only when I started meeting Western Buddhists that I started seeing atheism, an emphasis on no-soul, and often a rigid adherence to scriptures and orthodoxy.

 

[Secret Chief]

...and the ancient world was not completely awash with deities was it. There were non deity focussed thinkers and philosophies in, for instance, India and China I believe?

 

[paarsurrey]

...and the ancient world was not completely awash with deities was it. There were non deity focussed thinkers and philosophies in, for instance, India and China I believe?

I think nobody denies that.

We say that belief in one true God is the original belief; when people got engaged in worldliness they forgot the message; they started believing in many deities or they denied the one true God. This is how the pendulum of time worked.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I think nobody denies that.

We say that belief in one true God is the original belief; when people got engaged in worldliness they forgot the message; they started believing in many deities or they denied the one true God. This is how the pendulum of time worked.

By we, you mean you and anyone else not wise enough to know when to stop projecting.

 

[Breathe]

We say that belief in one true God is the original belief; when people got engaged in worldliness they forgot the message; they started believing in many deities or they denied the one true God. This is how the pendulum of time worked.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of Buddha being a monotheist is very, very, very slim. Monotheism was most likely unknown in that culture.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think nobody denies that.

We say that belief in one true God is the original belief; when people got engaged in worldliness they forgot the message; they started believing in many deities or they denied the one true God. This is how the pendulum of time worked.

According to you and your belief, but you have no proof that this was actually the case.

 

[Secret Chief]

I think nobody denies that.

We say that belief in one true God is the original belief; when people got engaged in worldliness they forgot the message; they started believing in many deities or they denied the one true God. This is how the pendulum of time worked.

And this baseless assertion has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

I think what I have coloured in magenta above is correct.

quote ratikala ..
'' the buddhas teachings were not overtly atheistic ''

One should not forget here that we have no scripture written down by Buddha or dictated by him; so we cannot ignore his being a believer in one true God.

I think we have to be very carefull with calling buddha a beliver when in truth as a realised being he was a 'knower'
it would not be nececary for buddha to beleive as he was a physical incarnation of the original primprdial being , he did not have to beleive in god he was of god .

however he did not nececarily wish to teach upon or reveal his divine nature , he chose to teach a systematic path to liberation . therefore the teachings that have been handed down relate only to the instructions given by the buddha so that the monastic orders might atain liberation by realisation , of their own accord and by the strength of their own practice. .....i.e. surrender .

without the preparitory work of purifying the body speach and mind what use would there be in revealing the nature of divinity when the impure mind is not equiped to understand such profound a realisation ?

The thought we get from whatever has been collected from the memory of narrators after lapse of some five hundred years, a plethora of it, impossible to rote it up correctly; his ways do not match with the atheists or agnostics.

this is in part true many texts were not writen down imidiately and in truth what was writen could only be writen on the strength of what had been understood . It is also worth bearing in mind that much of what was writen is that which had been handed down verbaly , as was the tradition of the day .it is possible that some teachings had been lost , as the first council only wrote down what they all agreed upon to be the words of the buddha .

 

[ratikala]

I know this is al ate reply, but I thought I would like to give my 'piece'.

I'm with ratikala ji on this one; Buddhism spread due to its simplicity. The lack of caste, which seems to harass Hinduism, despite not being a Hindu concept, most likely helped a lot.

this is very true again from outside buddhism it is widly told that buddha taught against the vedas for the simple reason that the braminical culture of the day had become corupt , it needed revision . thus the simplistic teachings of buddhism gained a firm hold through large areas of india if you examine buddhas teachings they do not contradict sanatana dharma they simply teach a new method by which all people could attain enlightenment , thus attaining liberation.

Buddhism in the East is not so "atheistic" as in the West; the devas are still, usually, considered as existential beings, whom are frequently worshipped, or are regarded as manifestations of the Dharmakāya. Theravāda Buddhism exists most frequently with Hinduism and/or local animistic religions. Even in Thailand, where about 97% of people are Buddhist, many worship Ganeśa and even Brahmā, whose worship has since declined to almost none in Hindu-majority nations. I always used to ask my Thai friends why they worshipped

this is also true I have spent much time with non western buddhists and I find their beleifs and behavior to be very different to western converts .

At the same time, the Buddhism that was most successful was Mahāyāna Buddhism. Its numerous bodhisattvas have fulfilled roles similar to devas for the majority of the population. Pure Land followers probably make up the biggest number of Buddhists; Pure Land was born, and it grew well, probably due to its ease and worship.

Other forms of Buddhism, such as Shingon, Tiantai (Tendai), and Tibetan Buddhism also use divinities, local and/or imported from Hinduism, and they speak of Dharmakāya and sometimes even Adibuddha in ways that can appear like theism, and probably, in all honesty, borders upon nondual pantheism; I've met a few Shingon followers, and they said they saw the Dharmakāya as "like the Christian God".

in truth these divinities predate hinduism and belong to the much earlier vedic traditions , which simply highlights the fact that the methods of teaching sanatana dharma have allways been subject to changs but the underlaying truths remain constant .for which reason I see no difference between the 'adi buddha' , the primordial being and the hindu 'parameshwara '

It was only when I started meeting Western Buddhists that I started seeing atheism, an emphasis on no-soul, and often a rigid adherence to scriptures and orthodoxy.

unfortunately I find this also to be scaringly true

sorry it is not something I wish to debate , but think it is somthing that should be given fair concideration .

 

[George-ananda]

Like all of you, I have heard many ways of interpreting the Buddha and his teachings. Here's my best understanding:

Buddha was not interested in spending time on things that can never be known (Is there a God?, etc.). He was concerned with practical things like suffering and the end of suffering.

To call him a Theist or an Atheist is inaccurate.

I don't agree with the modern western atheist-materialist interpretation being given by some to the Buddha. For one, the concepts of re-birth and Nirvana makes no sense to a materialist. I'm reading a book now by the Dali Lama (who I think has a pretty fair grasp of Buddhism; although he will not claim infallibility) and he seems to share my views.

 

[paarsurrey]

this is in part true many texts were not writen down imidiately and in truth what was writen could only be writen on the strength of what had been understood . It is also worth bearing in mind that much of what was writen is that which had been handed down verbaly , as was the tradition of the day .it is possible that some teachings had been lost , as the first council only wrote down what they all agreed upon to be the words of the buddha .

Since Buddha did not write down anything for us or he did not dictate anything the correctness of which he could have checked and authenticated himself; so I should not be asked, justifiably, to quote anything from him as his words.

Everything which has reached us is only a guesswork.

One should understand that Buddha was dejected as his followers in his own time got divided in two factions; and he had to leave their company till the matter was somewhat resolved under his direct supervision, as is stated. What could have happened when he died could be guessed from that incident?

My concern is Buddha; not the Buddhists or Buddhism, please.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

My concern is Buddha; not the Buddhists or Buddhism, please.

And the Buddha is known through scripture or nirvana. You have claimed the former is corrupted and the latter...

Feel free to keep reinventing history to suit your needs. It's done wonders.