The Buddha and God
Buddhism is quite different from other religions in that rationality and skepticism are encouraged. Suffering, a central tenet; impermanence, an undeniable truth; the middle path, the essence of life itself. So, I'm not making outlandish claims here. Of course there are certain aspects like rebirth and Karma which don't go down well with the modern materialistic worldview but these too have an, almost imperceptible, rational basis e.g. Karma is simply an extension of causation and there is evidence??? of reincarnation.
Buddha, indubitably, was a great mind and Buddhism does make sense. Before I forget, it's considered a religion that most agrees with the present understanding of our world. I don't know fully why this is the case but one reason why I think this ie so is the absence of a God. With this simple omission, the Buddha provides a good explanation of the fact of suffering (Karma) and also doesn't have to deal with the problem of evil that troubles God-basef religions. In short, Buddha's world is coherent - a very important characteristic of a good hypothesis.
It wasn't the case that the Buddha was unaware of the concept of God. Hinduism was the religion of his birth and God(s) is/are a fundamental part of that religion.
Given this was the case, it's quite obvious that the thought of a Creator, all good, all powerful, all knowing, must have crossed the Buddha's mind. Surely, he must've given it due consideration in his meditations.
What were the findings of this meditations? Did he discover God or did he come up empty handed? Was he unable to settle the matter?
I ask because, the Buddha never made any definitive statements about God. It's said he disdained metaphysical questions and would maintain, what is called, noble silence. The Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a God-creator.
We could take the Buddha's unwillingness to assert anything about God in a number of ways:
1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it
2. He didn't find God but didn't want to reveal it
3. He could neither prove nor disprove God
Allow me the assumption that the Buddha was a good man and thus devoted to the welfare of his followers and all mankind.
It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism?
Which of the 3 options given above do you think best explains Buddha's cryptic silence on the matter? Why?
Buddha, indubitably, was a great mind and Buddhism does make sense. Before I forget, it's considered a religion that most agrees with the present understanding of our world. I don't know fully why this is the case but one reason why I think this ie so is the absence of a God. With this simple omission, the Buddha provides a good explanation of the fact of suffering (Karma) and also doesn't have to deal with the problem of evil that troubles God-basef religions. In short, Buddha's world is coherent - a very important characteristic of a good hypothesis.
It wasn't the case that the Buddha was unaware of the concept of God. Hinduism was the religion of his birth and God(s) is/are a fundamental part of that religion.
Given this was the case, it's quite obvious that the thought of a Creator, all good, all powerful, all knowing, must have crossed the Buddha's mind. Surely, he must've given it due consideration in his meditations.
What were the findings of this meditations? Did he discover God or did he come up empty handed? Was he unable to settle the matter?
I ask because, the Buddha never made any definitive statements about God. It's said he disdained metaphysical questions and would maintain, what is called, noble silence. The Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a God-creator.
We could take the Buddha's unwillingness to assert anything about God in a number of ways:
1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it
2. He didn't find God but didn't want to reveal it
3. He could neither prove nor disprove God
Allow me the assumption that the Buddha was a good man and thus devoted to the welfare of his followers and all mankind.
It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism?
Which of the 3 options given above do you think best explains Buddha's cryptic silence on the matter? Why?
Comments (126)
You do realise this is clearly false - so in a society where everyone believed in God/gods you're saying that the Buddha thought that other things would be more believable? Like usual, you're taking the Buddha out of his context and bringing him in a modern context.
Quoting TheMadFool
Dharma - Buddha-nature - Nirvana -> they are not impermanent (annica). Dharma is often translated as the Tao in Chinese, and the Tao is translated as Logos in Europe, meaning the Word. I think Buddha did reveal - or at least he invited people to see for themselves.
Karma is virtually identical with sin in Christianity. There is no sin that will go unpunished in Buddhism (whether in this life or in the next), that's what Karma means. Even having sex with your own wife during the day - for example - is a sin according to the Dalai Lama, which will be punished. The fact that pink-flying pony Buddhists in the West believe otherwise doesn't change the roots of the religion.
It does depend upon what Buddhism sect one refers to, since there is a multitude of major and minor branches. I would say that Buddhism, as practiced, can run the gamut of a simple, meditative philosophy to a full fledge religion. One can say the same for Daoism. I, myself, consider the basic tenets representing some reasonable philosophical thoughts.
Quoting TheMadFool
Here it gets tricky, because as far as I know Buddha never wrote anything down and what was passed down was done so by oral transmission. What was finally written down, was done so in many different versions using language that had it's open historical context, some of which is in conflict and all of which is subject to all types of interpretations.
Thus, talking about Buddha's motives and omissions gets kind of tricky and extremely speculative and ultimately just another branch of Buddhist philosophy/religion.
Perhaps he was just a very advanced thinker for his time, and wanted to bring about peaceful revolution, by providing a less harmful unprovable alternative. With no God to justify atrocious acts in the name of religion, and no despair from the meaningless of life without God, there was just the notion that bad behavior would eventually lead to bad consequences, and good deeds and intent would be rewarded at some point. "And by the way everybody, Karma is going to follow you to your next life, so don't think you'll be off the hook when you die."
With this I would agree, with the additional side comment that it is taught that Nirvana and Samsara are ultimately not separated.
Quoting Agustino
Partially agree. Karma of course means "action", and all actions have consequences and results. Good actions will likewise have good re-actions. Hence, the encouragement towards right speech, right thinking, etc. The mind-blowing kicker here is that the goal is to move beyond the whole realm of karma entirely, avoiding earthly re-birth. Unless one is a bohdisattva, intentionally enduring re-birth for the good of others. At least as I generally understand it, the various branches of Buddhism have their own specific teachings.
Quoting Agustino
Not disagreeing, just had not heard this before. Do you have a source for it? Even if so, it would seem to be in the realm of Tibetan Buddhism belief only.
Quoting Agustino
Funny! May we all contribute our favorite caricatures and straw men? BTW, my flying pony is an irridescent purple.:D
If i had to speculate, the knowledge itself wouldn't necessarily be the problem. I would imagine that during his life, Buddha had heard endless debates and arguments about countless beliefs. At a certain point, it becomes counterproductive. Meditation, prayer, and other efforts are neglected in the pursuit of debate. Metaphysical debates are like candy. If one has eaten nutritious food, candy isn't a problem. But if the entire diet is sweets...
Daniel Quinn's idea about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis may be relevant. He proposes that this tree is made only for the gods, as he calls them, and is the knowledge to run the world. When humans eat of this tree they do not get Knowledge, they only believe that they have the knowledge of the gods. And it is easy to see how that would go quickly astray.
God wasn't used to justify any atrocity in the name of religion back in Buddha's day, so how do you suppose that he would have come to believe that?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Who told you that? That's what some sects of Mahayana Buddhism (especially those Western ones) believe, but the oldest version of Buddhism, the Theravada absolutely don't believe that, and it would most likely count as wrong-belief. Why? Because Samsara is dukkha & annica - Nirvana is not. Hence this difference prevents them from being the same.
Quoting 0 thru 9
One second ago you were telling me that Samsara and Nirvana are not ultimately separate, so how is it possible to avoid re-birth? And what is it that avoids re-birth? The salvation from maya is achieved via asceticism and morality, certainly not by immoral practices, regardless of how much you meditate. That's part of the 8-Fold Path.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Many sources. Buddhism isn't what people in the West generally think it is. It's very very conservative in Asia. They adopted liberal stands in the West just to gain followers ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism
He could have said that. I don't see any clear and present danger in admitting agnosticism. Yet, he didn't. Why?
Quoting Agustino
Then why did the Buddha remain silent on the matter? Where in Buddhist scriptures is there anything about a creator god?
Quoting Rich
Yes, but it's not like we've to navigate a complex array of possibilities here. There are only 3 possibilities:
1. He found god
2. He didn't find god
3. He didn't know
He didn't say which. Why?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Thanks for pointing that out. So, Christianity also has something similar. In God's eyes, knowledge of good and evil is harmful. Why else would he forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree.
What exactly is the problem here? Buddha remains silent on God. God refuses to give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil
Because he wanted people to see for themselves.
One can speculate over one of these possibilities, or a multitude of others. Each person has their own spirituality which spans a very broad spectrum. Trying to guess what someone might have thought thousands of years ago is very tricky, especially since one's ideas about spirituality tends c to change over one's lifetime.
It's like @TheMadFool said - he could have anticipated the formation of extremism.
Why the cryptic silence? Perhaps he didn't have a strong opinion on the matter, and felt there was nothing to be gained from such a disclosure. Admitting that you don't know something is seen as a weakness to some. It's easier and probably wiser to reflect the question back to the asker, and let them find the same answer that you did; or simply to reply 'No comment'.
Out of nowhere? :s With absolutely no indication that such extremism was even possible he thought about a way to prevent it... I don't buy that.
Ok sure, generally speaking it may be more conservative in Asia. And there may be those interested in Buddhism that believe that it is a hippy dippy tantric party, or something. I can't speak for those theoretical people. East is East, and West is West. And though the two have met, they will never be identical twins. It would not surprise me if the Dalai Lama understands cultural differences and has different messages for different circumstances. Here is a example of his general take on sex. I am not necessarily agreeing nor disagreeing with him, just giving an example. The video you posted is humorous, but i am still cannot find the sources of these supposed strict doctrines from the Dalai Lama. But again, this is somewhat of a side issue, imho.
Quoting Agustino
Well, you answered your own question quite well. It is an Mayayana teaching. That doesn't qualify it as wrong necessarily, especially for a non-Buddhist to say, no offense. Or do you have some Buddhist practice, in addition to your obvious knowledge and study of it. (Not being judgmental or sarcastic, just an honest question. Because as I understand it, religions cannot be fully and completely understood from the outside. That is probably a whole other topic though). But I would say the Theravada position might be safer, for lack of a better word, less likely to be misunderstood especially by novices like me. In other words, for God all things are good, but for humans some things are good and some things are bad.
Quoting Agustino
Personally, I don't know for sure. Any answer I would give is speculation. But as I understand it, the general teaching says when one transcends Karma, then one is free of re-birth. Someone please correct this if it is mistaken, or add some further clarification.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
I would tend to agree with these statements.
It gives you all the sources in the video. They are written out for you with the respective dates! The assertion I referred to is from here.
(Y) No problem whatsoever. The two different things seem to support each other, even coming from separate traditions. Knowledge of course is a wonderful, liberating thing. In Buddhism, wisdom is the opposite of the ignorance which births greed and hatred and countless scourges. Maybe a more helpful translation would be "the tree of One Who is Beyond Good and Evil". Which by definition would only be the Creator.
An acceptable answer but why? What was/is it that made him decide the truth about God wasn't/isn't something to be shared? Given my assumption that Buddha was a decent soul the only possibility is that the truth about God is dangerous. This isn't a far-fetched interpretation. Look at history - crusades and now jihad. On the other hand we have materialistic nihilism which is depressing, to say the least.
So, affirming or denying God has negative consequences; consequences the Buddha, being a good man, didn't want to be responsible for. Anyway, he preempted fanaticism and nihilism by neither affirming nor denying god respectively.
:-} Looks like I've answered my own question.
That's my POV though and I'd like to read yours.
Quoting Rich
What do you think?
Quoting CasKev
I agree but that's a politician's tactic. Do you think Buddha was a shrewd politician - deftly avoiding controversy? Doesn't seem like it because he was also preaching Karma and rebirth, both equally hard to prove as God.
Quoting 0 thru 9
How so? The Buddha is censoring vital information.
About God? Who knows? There are endless possibilities to choose from.
Because the truth of God cannot be adequately conveyed through language.
I wouldn't put it that way, and i hope you don't actually think that is the case. It makes him seem uncompassionate, and it sounds like a conspiracy theory. :D I'm no expert. But of course do whatever works best for you... Like it was mentioned above, the Buddha wants each person to work it out for themselves. Fish can be a delicious meal, but unless I'm a baby penguin, I'd rather eat the fish myself rather than to have it regurgitated to me. The Buddha's final words, according to tradition:
"Behold, O monks, this is my advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation." (Y)
Whilst reason dictates against discussing such a recondite question with a person whose forum name is 'Mad Fool', I will hazard a reply.
The basic issue is a cultural one: at the time that the Hebrews tribes were downloading their texts from 'God', India had been comparatively civilized for millennia. There are archeological sites in Mohenjo Daro (modern Pakistan) with religious sculptures and a script that has never been translated, from 2,500 years ago. The Buddha was born into a culture that was alive with devas (the Hindu pantheon; the indo-european 'deva' is the root of 'divine').
The Buddha was a 'forest wanderer'. There were, and still are, a whole class of persons in Indian culture who renounce society and take to the seclusion of the forests in pursuit of enlightenment. The Buddha himself learned under two, whose names are preserved to this day, but then left dissatisfied. He spent six arduous years in ascetic meditation before eventually abandoning asceticism and realising Nirv??a under the Bo tree in what is now Bodh Gaya.
The account of the Buddha's search and enlightenment is far too lengthy to try and summarise in a Forum post. According to the Buddhist texts, what the Buddha discovered was the cause of dukkha (usually translated as sorrow, stress, or unhappiness), in terms of the 'chain of dependent origination', which is the sequence of causes that gives rise to dukkha. This operates at both a micro- and macro level, i.e. moment to moment in the mind, and lifetime to lifetime over vast periods ('aeons of kalpas'). The process of liberation is understanding those causes of sorrow through disciplined meditation which changes the way the mind interprets experience.
In respect of who the Buddha should regard as 'teacher', one particularly relevant verse is the one which records who the Buddha ought to revere as teacher. It reads as follows:
— SN 6.2
Biblical revelation was never a part of the Buddha's life-world. He was born, taught, and died in North Eastern India, probably in the 6th-5th centuries B.C.E., before there was written language or trade between the two cultural spheres.
What is often described as chaos and order, I think is better thought of as undifferentiated oneness, and discernment. Sense and judgment. "God" is this undifferentiated oneness, which is then filtered through conceptual schemes. Da Buddha didn't seem to trust conceptual schemes, and thought that dogmas was counter-productive. Language is limited, and even more than that, pre-conception and attachment to ideas is a source of delusion. Maya being "extraordinary power and wisdom". Having certain maps that are the ultimate truth makes one see things only though these schemes.
I think that all that is really important to note, is that every religious tradition agrees about one thing, and that is that morality is paramount. One isn't going to see undifferentiated oneness while treating themselves and everyone else as fundamentally different. Because "this is me", "this is mine" and such becomes justified with societal strata, economic status, age, creed, intelligence, attractiveness, and any other kind of differentiation that one may come up with. To cling to these, to hold fast to these, and to even speculate on a metaphysical delineation is a great obstacle.
Da Buddha only forwards practical, and moral precepts, that are practicable, things that you do, and not things that you believe.
For this reason, I don't think that Da Buddha has any real difference in end place as many many mystics, and religious traditions, but what differs is his approach on how to get there. What is by far the most important is that everyone gets there, in his view, and not sharing second hand what it's like, as that can never be truly shared in the first place. It just becomes an obstacle for everyone else.
Thanks for the compliment :P
Anyway, one thing's clear. You've avoided answering the question, like the Buddha, I must say.
Quoting Rich
Give me a possibility that best explains Buddha's silence on God, in your opinion.
Quoting Agustino
I understand describing God is not easy. However, Buddha simply had to answer a yes/no question: Does God exist?. What's so difficult about that? People, presumably not half as wise as thr Buddha, do it all the time.
Yes, I was worried that my inquiry would be interpreted as a conspiracy theory. After all, my line of inquiry leads back to the first assumption I made: Buddha is a good man. Do you think it's possible to guess correctly what the Buddha's intentions were? Can we read his mind, so to speak? It doesn't look that difficult, since there are only 3 options which I've outlined above. Please try.
Quoting Wosret
Let's begin here. We can assume Buddha had the best interests of mankind in mind, morally. So, it follows that knowledge of God is harmful. Why else would he remain silent? Can you pick up the thread from there...
As I attempted to explain, knowledge of God is not harmful, but an empty image of God is. Isn't that also something western religions agree about? No idols, and even the name of God being something that can't even be pronounced. Literally unspeakable without misunderstanding.
So, you think Buddha was silent because God is ineffable.
Why didn't he say that? It's quite simple. You just said it. @Agustino said it. I think there's more to his silence than ineffableness simpliciter.
I'll refresh the page, so to speak:
1. Buddha found god
2. Buddha didn't find god
3. Buddha didn't know
There are three clear possibilities.
Assumption: Buddha was a good man, dedicated to alleviating suffering.
It follows that:
A) knowledge of God's existence is bad
B) knowledge of God's nonexistence is bad
C) knowledge of Buddha's ignorance is bad
A and B are reasonable. God was/is/will be a cause for discrimination/murder/war, etc. In these two options Buddha's good intent is preserved.
However, C is intriguing. Who stands to benefit by concealing ignorance? Quite obviously the ignorant concealer. Loss of reputation, credibility, all sorts of negative consequences follow from revealing one's ignorance. With C, Buddha loses his goodness. He's being deceitful. Of course, one can see a moral arithmetic whereby the Buddha achieves greater good by hiding his ignorance. However, these benefits are marred by the immorality of deceit on Buddha's part. Was Buddha a consequentialist?
@Wayfarer please have a look at my argument above.
No it doesn't. It may be very beneficial, but impossible to communicate through words.
Quoting TheMadFool
Because it's meaningless to answer questions of existence with regards to an X that people don't understand the meaning of.
How would you know what he found or didn't find?
It you would like to do some reading on the question of God and Buddhism, here are some references:
Buddhism and the God Idea, Nyanoponika Thera
Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Traditions, Richard Hayes
What then of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - their core assertion is ''God exists''. Why didn't they remain silent, as the Buddha did, if God is inexpressible?
Clearly, the discussion is diverting towards other religions but to keep it on track...
If Abrahamic religions didn't see any problems in asserting God's existence, the Buddha too shouldn't have remained silent on the matter. The contraposition of the above isn't a compliment for Abrahamic religions.
Quoting Agustino
What do you mean? God is undefinable? What use is that for rational analysis? We should discard all rationality, and with it religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and dive headlong into mysticism.
He was asked what he gained, and he replied "nothing", and explained that he had only lost things. Lao-tzu similarly said that those that seek learning gain, those that seek the way lose.
Because they thought conveying that God exists would be a better way to motivate people to seek God. Buddha thought that being silent would be a better way to get people to seek God, as it would pique their curiosity.
And no - "God exists" isn't the core assertion of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These three religions all take God's existence for granted pretty much.
Quoting TheMadFool
Nope, Christianity is not like that. And yes, rational analysis is not very helpful when it comes to God. The oldest version of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy - is a mystical religion. You have very superficial knowledge of religion, a large share of it mediated by the popular culture of today, and what other people are saying, rather than your own knowledge based on intimate acquaintance with the religion or your own studying of its theology and/or historical roots.
Quoting Wosret
Lies.
Quoting Wosret
Quote the Tao Te Ching please, which is almost the Old Testament of Asia prefiguring Jesus Christ -
Ok then, can you please cite me the sutra where it is? And what does Buddha being poisoned have to do with translation of the sutras?
No, I'm not interested in talking to you, don't bother addressing me.
:s So you're no longer interested to talk when I ask you for a reference to something you stated as fact... interesting fellow you are.
It is amusing and curious btw that Tao, and Baghavad Gita, etc. seems to have been far better at talking about the Christian mysteries than christianity itself has.
No, he didn't think it's better to LET people. He thought it's better to encourage people to do so.
Quoting Beebert
That's false, and I don't see how you're going to support this assertion.
Quoting Beebert
:s How?
Quoting Beebert
:-}
I've tried to explain to you, with examples from texts, that the Buddha didn't talk about the matter of 'God' at all, but from what you're saying here, you seem not to have grasped this point. Will I try and explain it again, or better not to bother?
He was,however, founder of one of the major world religions, which would be unlikely had he found 'nothing at all'. The traditional expression is that the Buddha discovered 'the cause of suffering, and the way to its cessation', which is what underlies Buddhist teachings.
If I remove God from these religions, what remains? Nothing!
Quoting Agustino
This could be a reason why the Buddha was silent. But...he could've said that. There's more to Buddha's silence than the reasons you profer because in each instance he could've just said so e.g that god is ineffable. He didn't. Why?
Quoting Agustino
Please read above
"God" is a word. If you remove a word, what remains is the reality underlying that word.
Quoting TheMadFool
Because if he gave an answer, people would be satisfied, and stop seeking for themselves.
Quoting TheMadFool
I did. You're wrong.
May be @Wayfarer will have something to say about that.
However, it seems all the possibilities for why the Buddha remained silent can be eliminated. So, we're left with:
The Buddha was either being deliberately deceitful or there's great harm in knowing God's ontological status. This is a real dilemma for me because I consider Buddha a good man and I'm open to the existence of God.
The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. Similarly to Daoism, what is found is the way. The truth, the light, and the way. Which is lived, demonstrated, and emulated.
I personally don't think that the people, or authorities matter all that much, just the way does, as expressed in your own life. I'm no scholar, and certainly am not always right about everything. I'm just after a way to live and conduct myself in the world, preferably the best way.
There are several things that I find objectionable about many of the characters. We can't all found religions, and I prefer to see the best ones as being about equity, and the value of life at their heart. What I say doesn't mean to be authority based, but just expressions of my own life, and how I correlate my own experiences to these teachings. Isn't that what we're all doing. If it is helpful to others, then great. Many things said here are helpful to me.
You're sidestepping the obvious fact that my statement asserts. Either Abrahamic religions got it wrong or Buddha is wrong in being silent. Is this a false dichotomy? You tell me.
Quoting Wayfarer
Exactly! So, why the silent treatment?
Quoting Agustino
The word ''God'' has meaning. An omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. Remove that and Judaism, Christianity and Islam implode.
Citations please. So far you're just offering us your blank assertions, one of which I've proven to be false.
These words aren't found in the Bible - they are philosophical in origin, and they indeed are attributes of God that emerge from the Biblical narrative, but they're not found there. Also you have no idea what God being a "being" means, since God isn't a being the way you and me are beings. So by what means would you have an idea? "being" is not a determinate concept, the way "triangle" is. Anything you can think of is a "being". So that's not going to be helpful at all.
As I attempted, and obviously failed to say, I didn't agree with any of the options. I also think that Buddhism is a response to yogic and Hindu tradition (which were the conceptual tools that Buddha would have had at his disposal), and yoga is about liberation, and union with the divine. I also like the idea that it means to yoke, or bring to things together, or into alignment. Both seem quite plausible to me.
His goal, and the goal of Buddhism was not to realize the true self, and union with the divine, but the cessation of suffering. Not like he went out of his way to deny the divine, and Buddhism makes use of the both the concepts of reincarnation, and karma as a cause of it, both of which would presuppose many Hindu ideas.
But it's easy to say ''God is beyond words''. I just said it. You said it and, I think, @Wosret said it.
Yet, Buddha didn't. Why?
No, for like the tenth time, I did not.
I answered that question. Because then people wouldn't be curious to find out anymore, they'd have a clear answer given.
But neither did he affirm the divine. Plus, he didn't he say he was agnostic. The question of his silence remains unanswered.
One way to make sense of it is the Buddha anticipated all the conceptual problems the divine entails, from its description (@Agustino) to the problem of evil. A wise man would discreetly avoid such unsolvable controversies. Thus, Buddha kept mum on the issue.
This is pure speculation. An attempt to read Buddha's mind but surely something worthwhile. Perhaps in silence there's great wisdom.
Quoting Agustino
Even this is expressible in words and the Buddha could've said so. ''If I tell you anything about God then you will lose the will to discover the truth'' - see? Easy.
Sorry.
Yes, and if he said that, would they not lose the will to discover the truth? Of course they would!
The cessation of suffering isn't enough, it doesn't tell you how to structure society. Maybe if we were all awake it would be super obvious, but I doubt that.
None of them are complete doctrines, that cover every single aspect of life, and what you may encounter.
I would not. In fact, it would encourage me to seek an answer. I think that's true for others too.
You continually just presuppose that it's either God, or not God, as if this concept itself is true or false. My suggestion was that no concept is like that at all. They're all expressions of experience, and life. The concepts are neither true nor false, so that nothing is gained in affirming or denying them. Though powerfully enchanting ideas may best be askewed. .
No it's absolutely not true for others. On the contrary, if you know that knowing an answer would deflate your will to find out, you will postpone knowing, since you'll know, that in principle, it's possible.
I'm not, Fool. I'm answering the question, but you're seeing the answer through your preconceived notion of what constitutes 'religion', so you're unable to understand what is being said. You really should reflect a some more before launching a string of characters, but then you might have to change your moniker ;-)
I kind of get what you're saying Woz, but it's a very idiosyncratic take on the subject. It is useful in these discussions to try and relate what is being said to some examples.
I did... what we're discussing is an example I gave... wayz
“Nothing.” “However”, Buddha said, “let me tell you what I lost : Anger, Anxiety, Depression, Insecurity, Fear of Old, Age and Death.”
That's the example. It can be dismissed, disagreed with, translations called into question and all that... but that I'm not giving examples is not one of them...
I don't care... how do you expect me to when you condescend, while claiming that I'm not giving examples in the midst of disputing one?
I guess it's time to do other things.
Apparently.
''God exists'' is not a concept. It's a proposition and therefore, has to be either true or false. Buddha refused to assign a truth value to that proposition. Why?
Quoting Wayfarer
:D
You've been beating around the bush. Thanks for the energy used/abused on my account.
Anyway...can you see it through my eyes, just for a moment.
1. Buddha knows God exists
2. Buddha knows God doesn't exist
3. Buddha doesn't know
These are the only options I can think of.
AND
Buddha was a good man
So, it follows that knowledge of God's ontology is harmful in some way.
Where's the problem?
Is my assumption that Buddha was good wrong?
Is knowledge of God bad?
Have I missed out any possibility here?
"God exists" is a proposition, but both "God" and "exists" are concepts, and not propositions. I personally like to try to figure out what's being talked about before I move on to propositions about them.
What I'm trying to explain to you, is that the Buddha lived and taught in a place where the Hebrew bible was unknown, and that he didn't address his audiences in terms of 'God' at all. You're fixated on this question, which frames the whole subject in terms that were outside to the Buddhist framework. If you're interested in trying to understand why that is so, then it is something to discuss, but if you keep repeating the same thing over and over, there's really no point.
There are some philosophical convergences between Buddhist and Christian teaching, but until you understand the above, it would not be fruitful to discuss it.
Ok.
''God'' is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being
''Exist'' means to have effects in our world and the afterlife (if that's true).
Also, surely, a great mind as his must've considered an all powerful divinity.
You're not mocking people's names? Shouldn't be too attached then...
In all fairness, I disputed it myself when it was thrown in my face a few days ago, but I spent some time thinking about it, and decided that I was mistaken. I disputed it for different reasons, suggesting that it was an ironic statement, that he meant only that the "I" hand't gained anything, his ego (a way better objection than any of yours *sticks out tongue*).
And don't half-assed address me, so that you try not to give me a notification... do or do not bro.
Again, concepts are not something that can be understood, or apprehended a priori, besides for logical form only, coherency and consistency. Facts are logically contingent, and neither necessary, nor contradictory, but all could be true. If it were that easy, then there would be no question.
This is NOT about translations being called into question. This simply cannot be found in the sutras.
Well, if you're going to call yourself 'Mad Fool'.... :-|
Quoting TheMadFool
Do you think Brahma is the same god as Jehovah, or a different God? And do you think that Hindus and Christians would agree that they are the same? In Hindu mythology, Brahma is sometimes supreme, other times the offspring of Shiva. It doesn't sound to me that this could be the same God as the Biblical One. And, how would you tell?
In any case, it's immaterial to the Buddha's teaching. He didn't say 'believe in me and you will be saved', or 'believe in God'.
Hinduism has the holy trinity of Shiva (destroyer), Vishnu (protector) and Brahma (creator).
You mean to say that the Buddha didn't/couldn't start off from that to conceive of a God?
This is clearly unreasonable.
1) Desire for more and more leads to a tumble to less and less. The higher you climb the bigger the fall (he most probably wasn't looking for great notoriety if he embraced his own ideas).
2) A method to moderate the ups and downs in life is to follow a Middle Path.
I think that is the gist of Buddhism and the rest was developed over time (including the Karma thing) for different purposes with different motivations. When it came to the nature of God and life and death he might have shrugged it off or he might have the thought it is cyclical as we keep learning.
Buddha Quotes:
[i]All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?
The mind is everything. What you think you become.
It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
There is nothing so disobedient as an undisciplined mind, and there is nothing so obedient as a disciplined mind.
Nothing can harm you as much as your own thoughts unguarded.
To conquer oneself is a greater task than conquering others.
You cannot travel the path until you have become the path itself.
The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows.
No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.
Purity or impurity depends on oneself. No one can purify another.
However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?
Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.
Three things can not hide for long: the Moon, the Sun and the Truth.
If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.
Those who have failed to work toward the truth have missed the purpose of living.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
In separateness lies the world’s greatest misery; in compassion lies the world’s true strength.
When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky.
If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path.
If you find no one to support you on the spiritual path, walk alone. There is no companionship with the immature.
Learn this from water: loud splashes the brook but the oceans depth are calm.
I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done.
If you knew what I know about the power of giving you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way.
It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you.
Look within, thou art the Buddha.
The whole secret of existence is to have no fear.
You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.
If the problem can be solved why worry? If the problem cannot be solved worrying will do you no good.
There is no path to happiness: happiness is the path.
Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.
Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely.
A man is not called wise because he talks and talks again; but if he is peaceful, loving and fearless.
You only lose what you cling to.
Pain is certain, suffering is optional.
As you walk and eat and travel, be where you are. Otherwise you will miss most of your life.
The past is already gone, the future is not yet here. There’s only one moment for you to live.
Even as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or blame.
Wear your ego like a loose fitting garment.
The trouble is, you think you have time.
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.
People with opinions just go around bothering one another.
Remembering a wrong is like carrying a burden on the mind.
There isn’t enough darkness in all the world to snuff out the light of one little candle.
One moment can change a day, one day can change a life and one life can change the world.
Imagine that every person in the world is enlightened but you. They are all your teachers, each doing just the right things to help you.
Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.
True love is born from understanding.
Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.
Every morning we are born again. What we do today is what matters most.
Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.
If you are facing in the right direction, all you need to do is keep on walking.[/i]
(From here. Hopefully these are all accurate quotes.)
Such quotes from different modern sources simply have to be taken as quotes from a modern source that are somewhat influenced by numerous other historical sources.
For sure, quotes that old that have been translated and retranslated will probably not be exactly what was originally said, assuming it was said at all. But i will have to disagree that he cannot be quoted at all since he apparently wrote nothing- if that is what you are saying. Someone can be quoted at a press conference, for instance FWIW. :)
However, in the case of Buddha, hundreds of years transpired before anything was written down and then there is distortion after that.
I just take quotes and ideas for what they are.
There is one thing I know that is inexpressible - CHAOS.
Is God = chaos?
God is beyond order and beyond chaos.
God is. God is not. God both is and is not.
God is here. God is not here. God in some ways is here, and in some ways is not here.
God is love. God is more than love.
God is more than God. God cannot be more than God. God is more than humans' idea of God.
God can be somewhat known. God can be known, but not described.
God can be described, but not known.
The meaning of life is love. Or choice. Or the quest for knowledge and wisdom.
There is no meaning of life. The meaning of life is in the living of it... etc...
I am not necessarily endorsing nor denying any of these sentences, of course. Not saying here that words are ultimately meaningless. I guess the point is to consider paradox, expand upon logic (build upon logic, transcend and include it), and let go of literalness when it may be beneficial. This may be obvious or foolish, but it helps me deal with concepts, ymmv.
Oh wow, sounds exactly like Christian theology!
I imagine to know what you might mean, but if you wish to elaborate it would be appreciated. Joking, not joking, half-serious, other? Thanks.
Read it.
And here's an Orthodox Saint.
Ok, thank you. Will check those out. (Y)
Quoting 0 thru 9
This is relevant to my question. Reminds me of...
Speech is silver. [I]Silence[/i] is golden.
Why? Why? Why?
To some extent, at least, isn't that both necessary and desirable? We don't live in the temporal/spatial context of Buddha, Abraham, Jesus, Mo... and most other religious founders. And what we know about Buddha, Abraham, Jesus, Mo, et al was not written down by secretaries while they were talking. By the time it was written down, new contexts had arisen. And since they were written down, several different contexts have come and gone.
When scholars engage in the search for "the historical Jesus", they discard bits and pieces that can be ascribed to later accretion. What they end up with after a few rounds of deletion is a shredded record with nothing but some bits and pieces left. My guess is that the same thing happens when scholars attempt the search for the historical Buddha, the historical Mohammed, etc.
One can't be entirely certain that one possesses an entirely true account of one's own life. What you yourself and others remember isn't a multimedia record. For the most part, we have only changeable memories of events which at that moment were colored by various influences.
Then how do you know God exists? According to you God's beyond comprehension. That puts God in the same bracket as chaos. How do you draw a heirarchy here?
Direct experience + faith. I do take belief in God as properly basic (as Plantinga would say) to be honest. Atheism isn't the default position for me, but quite the contrary, it's something one arrives at after effort.
This reminds me of a saying (not from Buddha): Make your words soft, warm, and sweet... for you might have to eat them! :-x (Y)
Sure, but the question we were talking about had to do with what the Buddha actually said, so in that case it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth that there's no evidence he said. At least what's in the sutras, even if not accurate is better and more likely to be true than what was added 50 years ago ;)
But you just said God's incomprehensible. Shouldn't that preclude any knowledge, including and beyond God's existence?
Anyway, that's a side point. The main issue is Buddha's silence on the matter. You haven't given me a good reason why.
Sure, except maybe the knowledge that He's incomprehensible ;)
(Y)
Actually I think I have, it's you who is frustratingly ignoring it.
4. Impermanence (and what you describe as an "undeniable truth")
The point of Buddhism is to transcend being or realize our true nature (emptiness). That being the case, God is just another sentient being, although an ultimately powerful one. That or God has transcended being, and if that's the case, good for him/her. Either way God isn't really relevant to salvation in Buddhism.
Your reason is:
Buddha kept silent to encourage people to seek the truth themselves.
This I said was unacceptable since you've just said it and it's easy to say it, why should the Buddha be silent?
Then you said that that would kill people's curiosity.
I replied that that isn't true.
Then you said I was wrong.
Then a kind poster said:
[I]The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao[/i]
You agreed, giving examples of Christian mysticism.
So, my question to you is why couldn't the Buddha say something like ''The Tao that....is not the eternal Tao''
It's not difficult. As you can see above.
But the Buddha didn't say anything about God. Why?
Sure, it's problematic to put stuff in his mouth -- or take stuff out. How much confidence can we have in any evidence that he did or didn't say something?
Of course, believers want to know what the Master said, but to some extent, they/we are out of luck. The Master usually didn't leave us written, unequivocal, verifiable, signed, sealed, and delivered Truth. This guy lived here or there around such and such a time, and he preached, counseled, taught, etc. and some disciples gathered around him, and then one fine day he died. The disciples did not, apparently say, "Well, that's that. Let's go have a cup of tea, brush up our resumes, and pick up where we left off, before we got tangled up in his BS."
No, they kept the community of the Master together. They repeated what they had heard the Master say; what they thought they had heard; reconstructed what they thought they should have heard; made up some new material to illustrate what the Master clearly meant but hadn't expressed very clearly. On another fine day the last of the Master's disciples died too. Now it was the followers of the disciples of the Master who kept the community together. Eventually it was the followers of the followers of the followers of the followers... and we have a religion. FF 2000 years or so and we have all these followers of the followers (many times over) splitting hairs about what the Master did or didn't say, what he did or didn't mean.
Point being?
For believers (actual or would-be) take the texts you have and interpret them in the light of the world you live in. Leave it to the the scholars to sort out what fits, doesn't fit, or isn't even in the ballpark. There's enough truth to go around among the believers and enough unanswered questions to keep the scholars busy, at least until they get tenure.
If the Buddha floats your boat, be glad. If not, try something else. Take up macrame; try fly fishing; learn Swedish, Latin, or Sanskrit; raise fancy chickens; Memorize the Iliad. Become a Zoroastrian. Or just go without The Truth altogether.
Something is true no matter who said it, or where it is found. Something is false no matter who says it, or where it is found in my view. This is why I attempted to askew notions of just appealing to authority when I was challenged.
I also referred to them all as "characters". I learn from real people how to play characters, and I learn from characters how to be a real person. .
Actually the story of the transmission of the Buddha's words is thus. After his death (or pari-nirvana) the monks all gathered for a council. One monk in particular, Ananda, who was one of Siddharta Gautama's blood relatives, and his attendant for a good deal of his ministry, was possessed of an exceptional memory. So he was called upon to recite all of what he could remember. That is why all the Buddhist Suttas begin with the phrase 'evam me sutam', meaning, 'thus have I heard'. However at the time, as was common in ancient India, nothing was written down at all, as the entire Vedic corpus (which is vast) had been memorised and recited from time immemorial. Over the next few centuries (this is around the 4th-1st centuries before Christ), written copies began to appear; the most ancient are birch-bark editions inscribed in scripts which are no longer extant. The oldest edition of 'Pali canon', comprising the 'three baskets' of the teachings (suttas, vinaya [monastic rules] and abhidharma ['higher teachings' i.e. philosophical and psychological principles]) is dated to around the third or fourth centuries A.D.
It is true that some new ideas and terms were introduced over this period, and then with the development of later movements in Buddhism, wholly new 'scriptures' appeared. And Buddhism has continued to grow and adapt over the intervening centuries.
There is a sutta (i.e. teaching) where the Buddha encounters two young Brahmins who ask him about how to pursue union with Brahma, the highest good. Following is an excerpt from Richard P Hayes essay Principled Atheism in Scholastic Buddhism, which explains this passage.
Again because God isn't relevant to this system of belief. You might as well point out that Jesus didn't say anything about emptiness and ask why.
This is one of the biggest dishonest bullshits I've heard on these forums. Yes, you are correct that a statement is true or false regardless of who said it. However, I challenged you about the authenticity of that claim being made by Buddha - not whether it's true or not. I don't care about disputing whether it's true, I care if it's what the Buddhist religion teaches. So you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim that's what the religion teaches. If you only claim that statement is true, that's not a problem to me. But don't tell me that's what Buddhism is, cause that's bullshit.
This is what happens when people claim that 1) There is truth 2) That someone lays claim to it.
Buddhism and Buddha probably initially held the vantage point that there is no immobility called truth (the concept of impermanence which also exists in Daoism at about the same time). However, over time, it appears Buddhism had morphed into thousands of goal oriented religions/philosophies which embrace truths if one sort it another and are often in conflict ft with each other. But at it's essence, I believe the philosophy embraces continuous evolution and impermanence which does not allow for truths.
If I'm understanding you correctly here, I would tend to disagree, or at least clarify. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any statements attributed to Buddha ever denying the existence of truth or truths, in general. This despite his assertion that all things are impermanent. I would take it that the laws of karma are outside of the category of "things". For example, it may be an issue of translation, but Buddha didn't name his core teaching "The Four Noble Helpful Hints". ;) But please give a reference if available. Now the "Two Truths" teaching posits both relative truths and ultimate truths. But that, I believe, is from a later Mahayana period, as helpful and enlightening as it may be.
When attempting to understand the essence of Buddhism, I look for similarities and differences been Buddhism and other cultural spiritualities developing at the same time (e.g. Daoism, Confucianism Hinduism). As sources, I prefer more neutral sources such as Alan Watts who shares with me the general feeling that Buddhism and Daoism have a tendency toward continue evolution as a reaction to the more hierarchical and less mobile traditions such as Hinduism and Confucianism which have more appeal to truths. Over time, certain Buddhist traditions have adopted notions of truth (which are in conflict with the notion of impermanence) for practical, economic reasons.
There is no way to point to a single source, but rather it is an image I developed after much reading on the subject and discussions with practitioners.
Fine. However, God pictures in Hinduism. While Jesus was unaware of emptiness, Buddha was in the know about divinity. He(?) even downgraded the Hindu gods into the realm of Samsara. Surprisingly, he never did the reverse of floating the idea of a supreme God a la Abrahamic religions. Why?
@Wayfarer
Strange. I would think someone who calls another's sincere efforts hassaka fits the description of rittaka and that, in turn implies the so-called ''achievements'' of the Buddha as tucchaka.
A long time ago, I read Buddha describing himself as a lotus flower, growing in pristine lakes and also in the dirtiest of pools, yet remaining unstained. I was a little boy then and it didn't sit well with me. Now I understand why. I saw the self-assured vanity of the Buddha. That said, the truths he taught stand on their own - they're great.
(Y) Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. This is making me research deeper, which is a good thing. I looked up the word "dogma", and "View (Buddhism)" from Wikipedia:
[i]dog·ma ?dô?m?/noun noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
synonyms: teaching, belief, tenet, principle, precept, maxim, article of faith, canon; More
creed, credo, set of beliefs, doctrine, ideology
"a dogma of the Sikh religion"
Origin mid 16th century: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’
View (Buddhism)
View or position (Pali di??hi, Sanskrit d???i) is a central idea in Buddhism.[1] In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action.[2] Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.[3]
Views are produced by and in turn produce mental conditioning. They are symptoms of conditioning, rather than neutral alternatives individuals can dispassionately choose.[4] The Buddha, according to the discourses, having attained the state of unconditioned mind, is said to have "passed beyond the bondage, tie, greed, obsession, acceptance, attachment, and lust of view."[5]
The Buddha of the early discourses often refers to the negative effect of attachment to speculative or fixed views, dogmatic opinions, or even correct views if not personally known to be true. In describing the highly diverse intellectual landscape of his day, he is said to have referred to "the wrangling of views, the jungle of views."[6] He assumed an unsympathetic attitude toward speculative and religious thought in general.[7] In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them.[8]
Those who wish to experience nirvana must free themselves from everything binding them to the world, including philosophical and religious doctrines.[9] Right view as the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path leads ultimately not to the holding of correct views, but to a detached form of cognition.[10][11]
Four wrong views Edit
Gyurme conveys the following 'four false views':[12][13]
seeing impurity as purity,
seeing selflessness as self,
seeing suffering as happiness,
seeing impermanence as permanence.
---FROM WIKIPEDIA [/i]
---------
Some interesting stuff here, hopefully helpful to this discussion. I hadn't realized the "dogma" comes from the Greek word for "opinion", derived from another word meaning "seem good, think". Compared to the way dogma is thought of currently, that seems kind of wishy-washy. Anyhow... beliefs, tenets, principles, precepts are all synonymous generally.
Basically, i am of two minds in regards to your post. On one hand, Buddhism has evolved and continues to do so. And in the Wikipedia article it says:
"In a set of poems in the Sutta Nipata, the Buddha states that he himself has no viewpoint. According to Steven Collins, these poems distill the style of teaching that was concerned less with the content of views and theories than with the psychological state of those who hold them."
So that is in the favor of the view expressed in your post. Can't disagree too much there. And i know that you are NOT saying "anything goes" either, of course.
I would just say that there are at least SOME tenets essential to Buddhism that makes it "Buddhism". In other words, someone is free to build on some the teachings of Buddha, and combine it with, say, Existentialism, to create a hybrid system that may happen to be full of insight. But at that point, it is more "Buddha-inspired" than "Buddhism", it seems to me anyway. This may just be splitting string cheese, but hopefully it is relevant. Now when it comes to the matter of "practice" (as opposed to beliefs or tenets), there may possibly be more open area for experimentation. Such as combining Tai Chi with chanting and zazen, or something. In any case, what you seem to be proposing doesn't seem wrong necessarily. It just seems, at best, advanced. Meaning that it might be more suitable for experienced practitioners, in order to avoid pitfalls. Then again, life is a learning experience. Just my two cents. Thanks again! :)
For myself, I find that exploring without stakes in the ground (truths) not only permits greater awareness (more mobility of thought) but is healthier in many ways (willfulness requires the expenditure of lots of energy).
You make a 2 second google search, saw it on fake buddha quotes, didn't even read the page, and called it lies. Despite that the page said that it was in the darmapada, then just insinuated that it was fake because it didn;t sound right to them because Buddha was poisoned, which itself may not even be true.
Don't call me dishonest. We both know how frequently you lie. You think I don't know? Don't address me.
Basically because in Buddhism there's two possibilities: nirvana or samsara. Any God, including a supreme God, can be in either. If God is samsaric then we're with God in samsara. If God is nirvanic then we'll be with God in nirvana. Alternatively I suppose you could interpret nirvana as God, in which case God would not be samsaric.
There can be no permanent heaven or hell because of impermanence, which you've described as an "undeniable truth." There are no souls, only emptiness, because of impermanence.
I have read the page, and it wasn't just that. I've studied Buddhism before, never heard of such a thing.
Quoting Wosret
The page did not say that it was in the Dhammapada. You are a very very big liar and you should be ashamed of yourself. You should read that page:
Does it say it's from the Dhammapada?!! (N) No of course it doesn't, cause I read the damn Dhammapada and it's not there.
Quoting Wosret
You probably cannot cite a single instance of me lying, and yet you call me a liar. You should look in the mirror.
That's not true. Buddhism states that the five Skandhas (meaning this world) is anicca. Buddhism does not state that Nirvana is impermanent, or the Dharma is impermanent, or Buddha-nature is impermanent. These things, on the contrary, are absolutely permanent and unchanging.
I liked the article for the more neutral approach. Part of us is eternally five years old, asking "why? why? why?" That is ok. Just take it one breath at a time.