Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?

[sabaijai]

You'll be saying that Buddha is above God next! ohmy.gif

Every living being dwells in one of thirty-one distinct "planes", of which our familiar human plane is but one. Some of these realms are home to beings (the devas) with unusual powers and extraordinarily subtle and refined physical bodies -- or even no body at all. Their god-like status is, however, short-lived; like all living beings, they are mortal and ultimately subject to death and rebirth in other planes according to the purity and skillfulness of their actions (kamma). One of these devas, the Great Brahma, is so clouded by his own delusion that he believes himself to be the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe

-- Digha Nikaya v11

[Grover]

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?

The Dali Lama often talks on the theme of uniting humanity, and I view this particular comment as his way of extending an olive branch to Jews, Christians, Muslims etc,

who might be averse to the unimportance of a God concept in Buddhism.

I dont think there is anything more in it than that.

[Neeranam]

You'll be saying that Buddha is above God next! ohmy.gif

Every living being dwells in one of thirty-one distinct "planes", of which our familiar human plane is but one. Some of these realms are home to beings (the devas) with unusual powers and extraordinarily subtle and refined physical bodies -- or even no body at all. Their god-like status is, however, short-lived; like all living beings, they are mortal and ultimately subject to death and rebirth in other planes according to the purity and skillfulness of their actions (kamma). One of these devas, the Great Brahma, is so clouded by his own delusion that he believes himself to be the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe

-- Digha Nikaya v11

Very interesting - where does Santa Claus live?

[camerata]

Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'?

I couldn't really answer without having a complete understanding of what Christians mean by that. Nirvana may be beyond all description, but it isn't beyond all understanding for those who have experienced it.

[garro]

In the my view, the Buddhist belief of non-self makes the issue of god/gods seem trivial.

If I accept that I don't exist as a self, what chance has a god. Even if he/she/it did exist, why should I care?

[canuckamuck]

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.

I don't think I missed your point, I just see it different. The peace described as passing all understanding is not the result of mental assurance (i.e. faith in ones choices, actions, or beliefs) but it is a spiritual confirmation of right action. This is part of the interaction and relationship with God. It is a spiritual peace. Human faith alone is insufficient to attain this peace as the mind is a battlefield where doubt and offense often interrupt man's mental peace. True peace comes with man's spirit agreeing with God's.

[canuckamuck]

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.

You are right in your appraisal of how man behaves. Those who receive wordly gifts for free rarely appreciate it, but I was talking about anxiety versus peace. Heirs are usually not concerned about retaining their inhheritence, at least not in the way others obsess about building wealth.

But men behave badly in both cases.

[Naam]

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.

hmmm... so how many Buddhas were there besides Gautama Buddha?

[Naam]

Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'?

I couldn't really answer without having a complete understanding of what Christians mean by that. Nirvana may be beyond all description, but it isn't beyond all understanding for those who have experienced it.

human beings exist who have experienced Nirvana?

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't think I missed your point, I just see it different. The peace described as passing all understanding is not the result of mental assurance (i.e. faith in ones choices, actions, or beliefs) but it is a spiritual confirmation of right action. This is part of the interaction and relationship with God. It is a spiritual peace. Human faith alone is insufficient to attain this peace as the mind is a battlefield where doubt and offense often interrupt man's mental peace. True peace comes with man's spirit agreeing with God's.

For all this to happen faith is the catalyst, which was my point. For one to be 'touched by the hand of god' you must believe that that is what happened, if you don't as you say the mind is a battlefield, you'll be full of doubts about what happened, and you'll never have the peace that passeth all understanding. Surely man's spirit agreeing with God's is a matter of faith that what you believe and experience is really him, if not does God force you to agree?

All you are doing is insisting I describe the peace that passeth all understanding in more detail than I did Nirvana when it was only meant to be a quick comparison.

[Brucenkhamen]

hmmm... so how many Buddhas were there besides Gautama Buddha?

Anybody can potentially become a Buddha, but most if not all people who have become enlightened as a result of the Buddha's teaching are Arahants. I may be wrong but the main difference between a buddha and an arahant is a buddha discovers the truth on his own, an arahant is guided by a teacher.

[thaicurious]

You are right in your appraisal of how man behaves. Those who receive wordly gifts for free rarely appreciate it, but I was talking about anxiety versus peace. Heirs are usually not concerned about retaining their inheritence, at least not in the way others obsess about building wealth.

perhaps that is a mistake that gets you kicked out of paradise. according to msm money http://tinyurl.com/qnud8 six out of 10 lose their family fortune within just two generations and nine out of 10 heirs lose their inheritance within just three generations.

i am unclear as to how you relate what you seem to see as the anxiety of taking responsibility for your own actions without the benefit of grace in a lineage of the hard work of understanding yourself and right living towards others as being inferior to being handed a peace which does not seem, according to your own analogy, any more enduring than nirvana.

"fools hate samsara and seek nirvana." ~~ longchen rabjam

[suegha]

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.

This is an interesting thread, however, as always assumptions are made as to what Christians believe. I do not believe in heaven going at death, totally unbiblical doctine as I understand it. The comparison of Nirvana being the cessation of 'greed, hatred, and delusion, therefore the cessation of suffering' is what the Kingdom of God promises believers (and there's so much more).

Some Christians may believe in Heaven going at death, many, however, don't!

[Brucenkhamen]

This is an interesting thread, however, as always assumptions are made as to what Christians believe. I do not believe in heaven going at death, totally unbiblical doctine as I understand it. The comparison of Nirvana being the cessation of 'greed, hatred, and delusion, therefore the cessation of suffering' is what the Kingdom of God promises believers (and there's so much more).

Some Christians may believe in Heaven going at death, many, however, don't!

You are correct about the "going to heaven" part and you are right on pulling me up on it.

I'm aware that correct Christian doctrine doesn't exactly say that, I'm also aware that it is a common (Fuzzy I guess) view held by many Christians, or by non-Cristians about Christians, I was just generalising really.

It's the same as saying "Buddhists believe in reincarnation", though this is not strictly true doctrine, it's a commonly held view on what Buddhists believe and many Buddhists view (Fuzzy I guess) it that way. So it doesn't really bother me when people make the generalisation "Buddhists believe in reincarnation" if I know where they're coming from and we aren't talking specific doctine.

So, point taken, lets get back on topic.

[canuckamuck]

i am unclear as to how you relate what you seem to see as the anxiety of taking responsibility for your own actions without the benefit of grace in a lineage of the hard work of understanding yourself and right living towards others as being inferior to being handed a peace which does not seem, according to your own analogy, any more enduring than nirvana.

The trouble here is that the analogy between Christian peace and Nirvana is not parallel or equal. Nirvana once achieved (I assume) is a permanent condition. Christian peace is a result of connection with God, this is not a permanent or one time occurrence when man is in a mortal state. Brucenkhamen is correct to say that faith is required to get to this point. But the peace is not in the belief that you are right, it is God showing His approval, and you feel it in your spirit.

The Christian Nirvana, if it can be described in that way, would be leaving your temporary mortal body, and entering into your permanent spirit body/home/destination. Generally this requires us to die. Eternity with God separated from a world of corruption and sin would be the closest comparison to Nirvana. I am curious about Suegha's view on heaven, but this is already far off topic and I apologize for the bunny trail.

About the anxiety about taking responsibility for your own actions, I guess what I believe is that being responsible for your own salvation must cause some anxiety and doubt, and it certainly requires effort. The assurance of salvation for me is more plausible because I know although I am fatally flawed, my Creator has a plan and purpose for me, and He will not abandon me if I will not abandon Him. Obviously grace comes into play here. Maybe it sounds too easy, I can't help that. Why else would I have been created if not to achieve some destiny? Why would the creator not assist in that? Christianity is intended to be relationship based.

[Brucenkhamen]

Obviously grace comes into play here. Maybe it sounds too easy, I can't help that. Why else would I have been created if not to achieve some destiny? Why would the creator not assist in that? Christianity is intended to be relationship based.

Ah but even the relationship part requires faith.

It takes faith to accept Jesus and enter into a “relationship”. It takes faith to believe that the “relationship” you are experiencing is not just some kind of imaginary friend, or mental construct, but real.

So whatever way you look at it’s based on faith.

From the outside looking it strikes me that this “relationship” idea in Christianity is bit like “religiousised imaginary friend”. Now that sort of thing is ok for a 5 year old but for an adult it’s something you’d want to see a psychotherapist about. I don’t say that to be rude or unkind just to give a view of how it looks from the outside looking in.

I can see merit in faith to get you started on the “spiritual path”, I just don’t see the merit in continuing to base your spiritual reality on faith, seems a bit like keeping the training wheels on when you should have grown out of them.

[canuckamuck]

You see you are assuming I have nothing to go on, nothing to confirm my faith. If that was the case then why would I choose to continue with this word relationship? What a dumb word to use to describe a one person scenario. A relationship is give and take.. Christians hear from God in ways that make little sense to non Christians. That does not diminish the fact that it happens. The number one way Christians hear from God is through scripture which continues to provide precise and timely answers to circumstances. Ask Christians and they will tell you the Bible comes across as new revelation every time they read it, despite the years they have dedicated to its study. To Christians the Word is alive. Another common communication is what is described as the still small voice which is not heard rather than understood. Other ways to hear from God is through visions, prophecy, dreams, and occasionally an audible voice. All of these are easy to mock and easy to misunderstand, which is why wise Christians seek out confirmation through other means. God is able to get His message across. It may all seem childish; I have no problem with that, the faith of a child is stronger than the faith of a man. And yes faith is important. But faith confirmed becomes knowledge and it is my knowledge of God that strengthens my relationship.

[thaicurious]

The trouble here is that the analogy between Christian peace and Nirvana is not parallel or equal. Nirvana once achieved (I assume) is a permanent condition.

some see their so-called spiritual journey as a point to point commute while others view it as a continuum of evolutionary development. for some heaven is a terminal, a final destination, while for others nirvana is a transfer station. while the concepts might differ, they do serve similar function on a utilitarian basis for those traveling to or through either and so can be seen as paralleling each other and spoken of that way.

[camerata]

human beings exist who have experienced Nirvana?

Sure. They are known as arahants. The well-known Western Buddhist monk, Ajahn Brahm, describes meeting one in Thailand in one of his books.

[camerata]

hmmm... so how many Buddhas were there besides Gautama Buddha?

The Theravada and Mahayana traditions differ here. Theravada considers a buddha to be a normal human being and assumes that when one buddha's teachings are finally lost to humanity, another will arise. By tradition, several buddhas are said to have existed before the historical Buddha, and another is predicted to be coming in the future.

In Mahayana doctrine, buddhahood is the aim of everyone and multiple buddhas exist in other realms. One of them is Amitabah, the image you see in most Chinese Buddhist temples and kung-<deleted> movies.

[Brucenkhamen]

You see you are assuming I have nothing to go on, nothing to confirm my faith... But faith confirmed becomes knowledge and it is my knowledge of God that strengthens my relationship.

I'm sure we've all heard it all before, I certainly have, it appears all I've achieved is to give you the opportunity to use this forum as a pulpit.

I'm not sure why you react to the label "faith" negatively when everything you've described above quite obviously requires a measure of faith to interpret the way you do.

If you can prove any experience you have listed above does not require faith in order to interpret it the way you do then I'd be happy to concede that Christianity is indeed not faith based.

[Grover]

Christians seek out confirmation through other means.

The moment one starts trying to confirm knowledge of God, one turns their back on faith it seems. Or it proves that it was an insecure type of faith.

But faith confirmed becomes knowledge and it is my knowledge of God that strengthens my relationship.

Once faith is confirmed and becomes knowledge, it simultaneously becomes redundant.

[Plus]

Why are you not content with accepting Buddhism as a way? You are obviously stretching the limits when you start worrying about the source and the destination.

If these questions persist, maybe you should try Christianity or something else.

I'm extremely sceptical about existence of arahants, btw. There's also a slim to none chance of comprehending any part of their understanding of Nirvana, so, even if they exist, it matters little your average buddhist. It's more of a faith issue that buddhists are not willing to admit, I'm afraid.

[chownah]

I think some have gone off topic....the topic is not whether God exists or not, nor is it about faith of any sort.....the topic is about what the Buddha taught about the existence of God or lack of such teaching.....this topic is about the Buddha's teachings.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think some have gone off topic....the topic is not whether God exists or not, nor is it about faith of any sort.....the topic is about what the Buddha taught about the existence of God or lack of such teaching.....this topic is about the Buddha's teachings.

That was probably my fault. I probably should have just pointed out in the beginning that my description of "the peace that passeth all understanding" as faith based was not meant to be a be-all and end-all description of it, rather a comparison with Nirvana at a level of detail appropriate in a Buddhist forum.

[Grover]

I'm extremely sceptical about existence of arahants, btw. There's also a slim to none chance of comprehending any part of their understanding of Nirvana,

Yes, there is no chance of comprehending their understanding of Nirvarna, because being beyond description, it can only be experienced by oneself.

so, even if they exist, it matters little your average buddhist.

In a way, because the average Buddhist wouldn't have the discernment to recognise a true arahant.

It's more of a faith issue that buddhists are not willing to admit, I'm afraid.

Although Buddhists necessarily have a belief in the Buddhas enlightenment, its not close to the fevered 'faith' of other religons, its more like a working hypothesis that one sets out to prove with self practise.

[Neeranam]

I found the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism, if we are allowed to discuss it, I'd hope that Buddhism is not cult-like in refusing to discuss certain matters.

Buddhism is usually regarded as a religion (or a spiritual philosophy) without an Absolute Creator God who created the universe ex nihilo and to whom worship and adoration are due. Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. In Mahayana Buddhism there is the notion of the Buddhas as generators of vast "Buddha lands", in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.

Huston Smith in his popular comparative religions book, "The World Religions", describes Buddhism as being psychological and not metaphysical like theistic religions. Unlike theistic religions which begin with notions of God and the creation of the universe, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Buddhists do not normally speak in terms of an Absolute Creator God.

In Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, however, there is far less reticence on the part of the Buddha (or Buddhas) to discourse upon metaphysical matters than is found in the Pali scriptures. A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between the teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, which do not speak affirmatively of a Creator God or an indestructible universal Essence in all beings, and the more explicit affrimation of mystical notions attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras, where expression is given to an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things (see, e.g. the Srimala Sutra) - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha - see Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. Kosho Yamamoto, ed. Dr. Tony Page, Nirvana Publications, London, 1999-2000, passim). Some Mahayana sutras envision the Buddha as the "god above the gods" (see, for example, the Lalita-Vistara Sutra), as a primal, eternal, sustaining essence within all beings and phenomena (see, for instance, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. Kosho Yamamoto, ed. Dr. Tony Page, Nirvana Publications, London, 1999-2000, passim, and the Mahayana Angulimaliya Sutra), while some tantras paint a portrait of the Buddha on a cosmological scale and in cosmogonic terms as the emanator of all beings and all universes (see, for instance, the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra). This primordial Buddha is viewed by the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism as absolute, eternal, omnipresent, supreme Knowingness/Awareness (jnana) beyond the limitations of ordinary consciousness. The Tibetan adept, Dolpopa, writes: "It is absolute, never relative. It is the true nature ... It is gnosis, never consciousness. It is pure, never impure. It is a sublime Self, never a nothingness ... It is Buddha, never a sentient being." (The Buddha from Dolpo, Cyrus Stearns, SUNY, New York, 1999, pp. 149-150). The Tibetan Sangpa Kagyu school of Buddhism speaks of the Ultimate Reality as pure, spotless, changeless Mind that is present in all things, all times and in all beings and which can never die. Kalu Rinpoche elucidates: " ... pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal." (Luminous Mind, Kalu Rinpoche, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1997, pp.20-21). Other Mahayana Buddhists, however, are averse to the idea of an Absolute and speak only of a chain of ongoing causes and conditions as the ultimate Truth (this is especially true of the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism).

In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices and struggles for perfect enlightenment (one can see this in the Jatakas) and as teachers who are embodiments of the "Dhamma" or "Law". In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human spirit and humanity's ability for jnana or perfect gnosis is celebrated in the concept of human saints known as Arahants which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect gnosis to obtain Nirvana.[1]

Buddhism is a way of life which does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but depends upon the practice of the Eightfold Path which includes contemplation. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however, veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgment to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All unenlightened supernatural beings are caught in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Neeranam

[camerata]

Buddhism is a way of life which does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but depends upon the practice of the Eightfold Path which includes contemplation. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however, veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgment to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All unenlightened supernatural beings are caught in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth.

This last para is really getting things confused (between Theravada and Mahayana, and between Buddhism and popular Buddhism). Veneration of a man, such as the Buddha, doesn't make him a god or God. Millions of Chinese venerate Confucius but he isn't a god. In Theravada there is little or no veneration of buddhas other than Sakyamuni, even though some are mentioned in the Pali Canon. And Theravada doesn't teach about supernatural buddhas that have the power to affect worldly events. Again, that's Mahayana.

Even though some Buddhists may pray and ask the Buddha for a winning lottery number, it ain't Buddhism!

[Plus]

Let's put it another way.

1. There's God.

Buddha must have been aware of his existence and so all his teaching must ulimately lead to establishing connection with God. Ultimately is the key word. For the vast majority of people it has no practical value and never will, for many many lifetimes.

2. There's no God.

Buddha was sharing his own realisations, not much different from authors of self-help books. Issues to which he had no answers, like the origin of universe, are irrelevant.

3. There's God but Buddha wasn't aware of his existence.

Nirvana is not the end of all. We are all in for a pleasant surprise.

>>>>

Debate about existence of God based on scritpure references is bound to produce contradictory results. General debate must define God first, but surely there must be only one God by any definition.

I, personally, link God to life. We all know what life is, and we know how life manipulates matter, but I have no idea how to define life in scientific terms. It's been elusive so far. I see God as a source of life rather than the guy who stitched some atoms together when no one else was around.

I bet once you clearly define God most of the questions will disappear.

[canuckamuck]

I'm sure we've all heard it all before, I certainly have, it appears all I've achieved is to give you the opportunity to use this forum as a pulpit.

I'm not sure why you react to the label "faith" negatively when everything you've described above quite obviously requires a measure of faith to interpret the way you do.

If you can prove any experience you have listed above does not require faith in order to interpret it the way you do then I'd be happy to concede that Christianity is indeed not faith based.

I realize this is the Buddhism forum and I might be pushing the intention of this forum by providing non Buddhist responses so if you want me to stop I will, but for now I would like to respectfully answer a couple of the comments directed to me, I will remember that I am a guest here.

It's funny how when I give my own thoughts you referred to it as a sermon but when others describe their deep held beliefs they are simply having a discussion.

I do not see faith as a negative thing, it is the key actually. What I was avoiding was the blanket statement that it is all based on faith alone and therefore imaginary as you were intonating. We all have faith in something; even atheism is a kind of faith. The question is how you arrive upon that faith.