Neeranam Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important? The latter. Or more accurately it wasn't important to the process of achieving freedom from suffering. Edited October 7, 2007 by Brucenkhamen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solo siam Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Did you hear him say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banchang Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 which god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumnien Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 We are not sure what the Lord said exactly. Some folks have an abiding faith that what the Lord said was recorded accurately, some folks don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 which god? Interesting question banchang. I sometimes wonder why you even bother to look at, never mind replying to any of these threads! However, there can only be one true God! Now whether that's important to you in your quest or not, is purely up to you. Answer the question for yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Did you hear him say this? I think most of us understood Neeranam's question as meaning "Did the scriptures record the Lord Buddha as saying God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?" Or are you suggesting he expected somebody who was alive 2500 years ago to be on this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 However, there can only be one true God! Considering the proliferation of gods in the Indian religious belief system(s) at the time the Buddha was recorded as commenting on the topic that statement is as unhelpful as Banchang's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grover Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 (edited) Some quotes from the article "Buddhism and the God-idea" that roughly answer the question with an explaination: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...ka/godidea.html In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct. Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed to be. Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist will recognize and appreciate whatever ethical, spiritual and cultural values have been created by God-belief in its long and checkered history. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as a cloak for man's will to power, and the reckless and cruel use of that power, thus adding considerably to the ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be an all-loving God's creation. For centuries free thought, free research and the expression of dissident views were obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. And alas, these and other negative consequences are not yet entirely things of the past. Edited October 8, 2007 by Grover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banchang Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 However, there can only be one true God! Considering the proliferation of gods in the Indian religious belief system(s) at the time the Buddha was recorded as commenting on the topic that statement is as unhelpful as Banchang's. Well I think you have just validated my point . Budda was unaware of sueghas god but was imersed in Indias multi god system at the time. I think this makes the original question all the more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Well I think you have just validated my point . Budda was unaware of sueghas god but was imersed in Indias multi god system at the time. I think this makes the original question all the more interesting. Indeed. So the point is it doesn't really matter whether we are talking about Sueghas one true god, or any other belief system out there, if the Buddha didn't think it helpful for the cessation of suffering he wasn't known to comment on it or give it importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important? The Creator God at the time of the Buddha was Brahma. In Buddhist cosmology - much of it borrowed from Brahmanism - there is a celestial Brahma World, but the highest of these Brahmas is not seen as a Creator. He's just another deluded being traveling through samsara like the rest of us. This god, and all other gods, are of no help to us in working out our liberation from samsara. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumnien Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Here is a good little Dalai Lama quote on God: Buddhism, the world's fourth-largest organized religion, is based on nonviolence that abhors killing any living thing. Yet Buddhism also has to contend with its own extremists. A group known as the Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese has been connected to violence against Muslims in Sri Lanka. Many Sinhalese, who are mostly Buddhists, see themselves engaged in a struggle for political and economic power against the minority Tamils, who are mostly Hindus. This has led some to resort to violence to advance the cause of Buddhists in the region. Dalai Lama at Forum 2000 (RFE/RL)"Extremism is connected to human emotions," the Dalai Lama said. "And some of these are very destructive emotions." Because of extremists, religion in general suffers from a negative image in today's world, he said. "The majority of people in the world are nonbelievers," he said. "And there are some people who want to ban religion. But religion is useful...it is connected to the human being...to bettering the human being...to producing more compassionate human beings." All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." In keeping with Buddhist concentration on the importance of developing inner peace, the Dalai Lama spoke repeatedly of the human quest for "happiness" and "contentment," which he said is not connected to wealth or materialism. He urged people who find their contentment in religion to be "sincere and serious," about their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists. Do you really think so? Would he not say it because he believed it to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists. Do you really think so? Would he not say it because he believed it to be true? I don't think it's a case of believing it is true or not true. He is trying to see Buddhism (which definitely has no creator God) from what he thinks could be a theist perspective. Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God. I can see the vague similarities he is trying to promote (for good reasons), but in doing so he is obscuring the fact that nirvana is very different. EDIT// Having said that, I just remembered that in Mahayana Buddhism there is some "external power" involved. Perhaps that external power (of the mythical buddhas and bodhisattvas) could be compared to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists. Do you really think so? Would he not say it because he believed it to be true? So the Dalai Lama believes in God? QUOTE(suegha @ 2007-10-07 22:23:00) However, there can only be one true God! Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chownah Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 AS far as I know the Buddha did not specifically say that God (with a capital G) did not exist...but on the other hand he did not specifically say that Santa Claus (with a capital S and C) did not exist either...nor did he say that the Easter Bunny (with a capital E and did not exist either...nor did........ I am not tring to equate these three personages....I am simply saying that the Buddha never made a list of the things he thought did not exist....probably to save time as I'm sure that there were a lot of concepts developed by the human mind that the Buddha figured did not exist..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Of course SC didn't arrive on the scene for another 2000 years and when he did show up he was Russian Orthodox. His naughty or nice application to karma was quickly dismissed by purists but surprisngly popular with parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted October 8, 2007 Author Share Posted October 8, 2007 AS far as I know the Buddha did not specifically say that God (with a capital G) did not exist...but on the other hand he did not specifically say that Santa Claus (with a capital S and C) did not exist either...nor did he say that the Easter Bunny (with a capital E and did not exist either...nor did........I am not tring to equate these three personages....I am simply saying that the Buddha never made a list of the things he thought did not exist....probably to save time as I'm sure that there were a lot of concepts developed by the human mind that the Buddha figured did not exist..... Are you saying that Buddha should have a capital 'B' but God shouldn't have a capital 'G'? You'll be saying that Buddha is above God next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Are you saying that Buddha should have a capital 'B' but God shouldn't have a capital 'G'?You'll be saying that Buddha is above God next! English was never my best subject so I may be wrong but... you capitalise a name when it refers to someone specific. So you capitalise Buddha when referring to Gautama Buddha a specific person, or to Sueghas one true God, a specific god. When referring to gods or buddhas in general you can use lower case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banchang Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Are you saying that Buddha should have a capital 'B' but God shouldn't have a capital 'G'?You'll be saying that Buddha is above God next! English was never my best subject so I may be wrong but... you capitalise a name when it refers to someone specific. So you capitalise Buddha when referring to Gautama Buddha a specific person, or to Sueghas one true God, a specific god. When referring to gods or buddhas in general you can use lower case. I take my hat off to you Brucenkhamen I think your spot on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endure Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists. Do you really think so? Would he not say it because he believed it to be true? I don't think it's a case of believing it is true or not true. He is trying to see Buddhism (which definitely has no creator God) from what he thinks could be a theist perspective. Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God. I can see the vague similarities he is trying to promote (for good reasons), but in doing so he is obscuring the fact that nirvana is very different. Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 I take my hat off to you Brucenkhamen I think your spot on there. I assure you my spot is definately not on there, I think you meant "you're spot on there". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'? If I understand it correctly 'the peace that passeth all understanding' comes from the belief that your sins are forgiven, and you are right with God, and you are going to heaven. So it's faith based and not necessarily reality based. Nirvana is the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion, therefore the cessation of suffering. Maybe they 'feel' similar, I wouldn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'? If I understand it correctly 'the peace that passeth all understanding' comes from the belief that your sins are forgiven, and you are right with God, and you are going to heaven. So it's faith based and not necessarily reality based. Nirvana is the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion, therefore the cessation of suffering. Maybe they 'feel' similar, I wouldn't know. Peace is not faith based, it is experienced. The goal of Christianity is not the attainment of peace because peace is a frequent experience of Christian life. The eventuality would be eternal incomprehensible joy, permanent connection with God, and more joy. But this is a free gift that needs to be received and cannot be achieved through mortal effort. This is the essential difference. Nirvana is a goal, salvation is an inheritence. Those who will inherit wealth are more at peace than those who strive to attain wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwaziBird Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 (edited) There's a most erudite study and research of this particular question which is addressed in a book entitled "The God of Buddha" , authored by Jamshed Fozdar. (The Thai version of this book carries the acknowledgement of our King as a frontespiece. The scholarship of this work has been acknowledged in the Journal of The Siam Society as well as by the World Fellowship of Buddhists and many other eminent institutions and centres of study ). As I read through this wonderful piece of research I am struck by not only it's beauty and paralleleling of the Buddhist Teachings with the Bahmanic/Hindu Teachings but, most importantly, the case is being strongly put and insight given into the one World Religion which holds itself apart from all others in this respect. At once, challenging, the title of the book "The God of Buddha" arouses our interest - and so it should - if there is to be honesty. Edited October 9, 2007 by SwaziBird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Peace is not faith based, it is experienced. And what gives rise to the experience? I think you've missed my point. Your statement is like saying cars don't run on internal combustion they are driven, when of course we all know the internal combustion makes the driving possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Those who will inherit wealth are more at peace than those who strive to attain wealth. Those who strive to attain wealth (unless they do it by ripping off others) grow in experience and character, they are more likely to appreciate what they have earned, they are more likely to have life lessons to pass on to others. Those who inherit wealth are more likely to squander it, remain immature, expect more handouts in future, less likely to take responsibility. I must say I like your analogy comparing the two different 'spiritual' approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeranam Posted October 9, 2007 Author Share Posted October 9, 2007 There's a most erudite study and research of this particular question which is addressed in a book entitled "The God of Buddha" , authored by Jamshed Fozdar.(The Thai version of this book carries the acknowledgement of our King as a frontespiece. The scholarship of this work has been acknowledged in the Journal of The Siam Society as well as by the World Fellowship of Buddhists and many other eminent institutions and centres of study ). As I read through this wonderful piece of research I am struck by not only it's beauty and paralleleling of the Buddhist Teachings with the Bahmanic/Hindu Teachings but, most importantly, the case is being strongly put and insight given into the one World Religion which holds itself apart from all others in this respect. At once, challenging, the title of the book "The God of Buddha" arouses our interest - and so it should - if there is to be honesty. Thanks for that - exactly what I'm looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now