The Buddha Was NOT Silent On God and Metaphysics

[John Martin]

The Mission of Buddha was to awaken the inner potentiality of human beings. There are two approaches to spiritual evolution: getting help from an outside agent or awakening the inner resources. For example: three persons fall into three different wells. The fist person believes that there is someone up there and shouts:help,help. The help comes and he is brought out of well. The second person tries by his own effort but could not manage and shouts for help, the help comes and he is brought out of the well. The third person does not believe that some on up there so he does not expect any help from outside and strives very hard and comes out of the well.
The first person says that I am saved by the grace of God
The second person says I have done my effort and in my helplessness the grace of God came and saved me.
The third person says that I have come out of the well by won effort. I am my own saviour.
The first two speak of grace of God coming from above.
The third one refers to the inherent grace present in everyone.

The mission of Buddha was to awaken the inherent grace one hundred percent. In this scheme speaking of God somewhere above is not very useful. It dilutes the inner awakening process. Buddha certainly did not believe in the God above but he certainly believed in the God within, the inherent power and the capacity to strive and come out of the well of samsara or dukha into nirvana and freedom.
But God is both outside and also within. We need to integrate both aspects.

 

[Secret Chief]

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

Rubbish. Thinly veiled beneath your 'concern' and polite tone is your usual and tedious attempts to undermine what you view as a defective and erroneous faith. It is ignorant, malicious and disingenous.

 

[crossfire]

Indeed, Buddha was not silent on the matter of metaphysics. (Metaphysics being this from wiki

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]

1. What is there?
2. What is it like?

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist [4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe.​

Indeed, Buddha said that metaphysical conjecture would lead to madness and vexation.

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
​

 

[Breathe]

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.

[...]

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 '

I feel the same way. :yes:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

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.

So in other words, we're just supposed to take your word for it? Why, what authority are you? I take it you're a Muslim, correct? How about the claim that Mohammed was not a prophet, but someone suffering from mental problems, and epilepsy, who did not have visions, but saw nothing more than hallucinations? Mohammed invented the Quran, and duped enough people into believing it to start a religion. Where's my evidence? The proof is in the pudding, as they say, that and psychology would agree with that analysis. You have no evidence to back up your claims, other than your belief, which is nothing more than conjecture, at best. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the evidence points away from your beliefs.

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

No, it's not. Your concern is propagating your own belief. It's bad enough that your people force your religion on anyone and everyone, now you're forcing your beliefs onto another belief system? Get real. *edit*

I know Muslims believe that every nation has had a prophet preaching monotheism, even though this belief does not match history. But how about this: the Buddha was not such a prophet. Where is the Buddha mentioned as a prophet in the Quran or Hadith? He's not. So you're basing your belief on nothing more than baseless speculation. *edit*

You say that the recorded words of the Buddha are not his, and that to say they are is baseless. However, as I pointed out, the Quran or Hadith never mentions the Buddha, so you're the one making baseless claims. The reason behind this? Because you're not after truth, you're after control. Since you believe that all nations have had a monotheistic prophet, you have to find something historical, and since there's nothing historical in India dealing with monotheism, you picked the Buddha, and have not, nor can you, back up your claims with any evidence, because there is none. It's much easier to attempt to control people when you have a historical person and a world religion, than it is to just make the claim, with nothing to go by. This is really sad and pathetic. Your baseless accusations might work on someone who has no knowledge of Buddhism, but for Buddhists, we know better. So you can take your preaching elsewhere.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Mission of Buddha was to awaken the inner potentiality of human beings. There are two approaches to spiritual evolution: getting help from an outside agent or awakening the inner resources. For example: three persons fall into three different wells. The fist person believes that there is someone up there and shouts:help,help. The help comes and he is brought out of well. The second person tries by his own effort but could not manage and shouts for help, the help comes and he is brought out of the well. The third person does not believe that some on up there so he does not expect any help from outside and strives very hard and comes out of the well.
The first person says that I am saved by the grace of God
The second person says I have done my effort and in my helplessness the grace of God came and saved me.
The third person says that I have come out of the well by won effort. I am my own saviour.
The first two speak of grace of God coming from above.
The third one refers to the inherent grace present in everyone.

The mission of Buddha was to awaken the inherent grace one hundred percent. In this scheme speaking of God somewhere above is not very useful. It dilutes the inner awakening process. Buddha certainly did not believe in the God above but he certainly believed in the God within, the inherent power and the capacity to strive and come out of the well of samsara or dukha into nirvana and freedom.
But God is both outside and also within. We need to integrate both aspects.

I agree with you that God is both outside and also within us; Buddha also had the same belief, in my opinion.

 

[Secret Chief]

I agree with you that God is both outside and also within us; Buddha also had the same belief, in my opinion.

How can you support this? The man is dead. The suttas you disparage as innacurate guesswork. On what therefore do you base your claim? Secondary sources are derived from the primary source that you do not accept.

 

[Shermana]

Was not the Lankavatara Sutra composed 1000 years or so after Buddha lived? Are there not disputes about what Buddha did and didn't say?

From what I understand, Buddha does in fact refer to "gods" as actual real beings and did in fact believe in Brahma.

Nonetheless there will be those of various sects (particularly it seems the totally Atheistic ones arose out of China in the 200-400 CE time unless I''m mistaken) who say differently, but this is an issue where it's hard to say for sure what exactly Sidhartha believed.

Who was Buddha? | Buddhism, Atheism and Christianity

Regarding Buddhism's purported "atheism," Dr. Inman comments:

"It is asserted that Siddartha did not believe in a god, and that his Nirvana was nothing more than absolute annihilation.
​

"To my own mind, the assertion that Sakya did not believe in God is wholly unsupported. Nay, his whole scheme is built upon the belief that there are powers above us which are capable of punishing mankind for their sins. It is true that these "gods" were not called Elohim, nor Jah, nor Jahveh, or Jehovah, nor Adonai, or Ehieh (I am), nor Baalim, nor Ashtoreth—yet, for "the son of Suddhodana" (another name for Sakya Muni, for he has almost as many, if not more than the western god), there was a supreme being called Brahma, or some other name representing the same idea as we entertain of the Omnipotent."
​

Concerning Buddha's death, Titcomb states:

"It is said that towards the end of his life Buddha was transfigured on Mount Pandava, in Ceylon. Suddenly a flame of light descended upon him, and encircled the crown of his head with a circle of light. His body became 'glorious as a bright, golden image,' and shone as the brightness of the Sun and moon
​

"At the death of Buddha, the earth trembled, the rocks were split and phantoms and spirits appeared. He descended into hell and preached to the spirits of the damned.
​

"When Buddha was buried, the coverings of his body unrolled themselves, the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural powers, and he ascended bodily to the celestial regions."
​

If the issue is about the semantic of the word "gods" as "supernatural beings", then Buddha was most certainly NOT Atheistic judging by what seems to be the bulk of Buddhist writings and legends.

From what I've read, Buddhist "Mythology" involving Supernatural beings and places and events is far more supported than the commonly held Western position that Buddhism is Atheist and non-Super-naturalist.

 

[ratikala]

namaskram shermana :namaste

Was not the Lankavatara Sutra composed 1000 years or so after Buddha lived? Are there not disputes about what Buddha did and didn't say?

as you rightly say some sutras were written some substantial time after the buddhas passing , even the earliest sutras were only written after tha meeting of the first council who met to agree upon what was to be atributed to the buddha and what was to be discarded , so it can be taken that there was some dissagreement even at that point .

From what I understand, Buddha does in fact refer to "gods" as actual real beings and did in fact believe in Brahma.

there are many references in the sutras to the heavenly realms , the abodes of devas , form and form less realms , and the realms of the gods , brahma is concidered as in hinduism as the creator of this universe so is by no means the highest in the realm of gods .

Nonetheless there will be those of various sects (particularly it seems the totally Atheistic ones arose out of China in the 200-400 CE time unless I''m mistaken) who say differently, but this is an issue where it's hard to say for sure what exactly Sidhartha believed.

impossible to say what he beleived as in truth we have to think in tearms of realisation , ...buddha did not think , ... he ' REALISED' .....there would be no point either in him telling his deciples the entirity of his realisations as therir minds were still to impure , .. instead he led them on the path to their own eventual realisation .

If the issue is about the semantic of the word "gods" as "supernatural beings", then Buddha was most certainly NOT Atheistic judging by what seems to be the bulk of Buddhist writings and legends.

agreed , .. as odion said earlier the entire culture sarrounding buddhism accepted the vedic gods and appropriated them for their imidiate benifits ,

From what I've read, Buddhist "Mythology" involving Supernatural beings and places and events is far more supported than the commonly held Western position that Buddhism is Atheist and non-Super-naturalist.

this is a reletively recent construct , and the focus of those who selectively addopt some buddhist philosophy from an interlectual standpoint , and who are not interested in what they concider to be cultural accretions . however the selectiveness of such an interlectual approach is some what simmilar to the astheticism that buddha rejected , prefering meditive examination and first hand attainment of pure knowledge .

buddhism is far more profound than many western schollars could begin to deduce by interlectual analasis , and is richer by far than many at first concider it to be , to concider it merely a philosophy is selling it incredibly short .

 

[paarsurrey]

Was not the Lankavatara Sutra composed 1000 years or so after Buddha lived? Are there not disputes about what Buddha did and didn't say?

From what I understand, Buddha does in fact refer to "gods" as actual real beings and did in fact believe in Brahma.

Nonetheless there will be those of various sects (particularly it seems the totally Atheistic ones arose out of China in the 200-400 CE time unless I''m mistaken) who say differently, but this is an issue where it's hard to say for sure what exactly Sidhartha believed.

Who was Buddha? | Buddhism, Atheism and Christianity


If the issue is about the semantic of the word "gods" as "supernatural beings", then Buddha was most certainly NOT Atheistic judging by what seems to be the bulk of Buddhist writings and legends.

From what I've read, Buddhist "Mythology" involving Supernatural beings and places and events is far more supported than the commonly held Western position that Buddhism is Atheist and non-Super-naturalist.

I agree with you.

Thanks and regards

 

[LuisDantas]

If the issue is about the semantic of the word "gods" as "supernatural beings", then Buddha was most certainly NOT Atheistic judging by what seems to be the bulk of Buddhist writings and legends.

I just don't see it.

From what I've read, Buddhist "Mythology" involving Supernatural beings and places and events is far more supported than the commonly held Western position that Buddhism is Atheist and non-Super-naturalist.

Perhaps in the sense that supernaturalism is a common view in the countries where there are many Buddhists. But that means little.

 

[Secret Chief]

How can you support this? The man is dead. The suttas you disparage as innacurate guesswork. On what therefore do you base your claim? Secondary sources are derived from the primary source that you do not accept.

Paarsurrey, I'm still waiting.

 

[paarsurrey]

How can you support this? The man is dead. The suttas you disparage as innacurate guesswork. On what therefore do you base your claim? Secondary sources are derived from the primary source that you do not accept.

There are no original sources written by Buddha; all are secondary sources in my opinion.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

There are no original sources written by Buddha; all are secondary sources in my opinion.

So, as he asked, on what are you basing your claim? If you have thrown out absolutely everything related to the Buddha, how are you claiming to know about the Buddha?

 

[Secret Chief]

There are no original sources written by Buddha; all are secondary sources in my opinion.

The Buddha wrote nothing? Thanks Sherlock.

Who said he did?

 

[Secret Chief]

So, as he asked, on what are you basing your claim? If you have thrown out absolutely everything related to the Buddha, how are you claiming to know about the Buddha?

God must have told him then.

 

[Secret Chief]

So paarsurrey how do you know the Buddha was silent on metaphysics, only a fool would refer only to secondary sources?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So paarsurrey how do you know the Buddha was silent on metaphysics, only a fool would refer only to secondary sources?

My best guess: induction based on preconceived notions of religion, Buddha, Islam, and divinity. As he has said before, He didn't believe Buddha would propose begging for his disciples because he thought it unseemly based on his own views of religious leaders.

And don't forget Socrates...

 

[Breathe]

And don't forget Socrates...

Wait, socrates as a prophet of the one true attributive creator God™ too?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Wait, socrates as a prophet of the one true attributive creator God™ too?

Yuppers.