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

[jumnien]

I have a great deal of compassion for atheists, as most of us do. However, while it is proving very difficult to prove that God (whatever that word "God" may mean to the 6 billion folks on the planet at present) does not exist; it will be far more difficult to prove what the Lord (Buddha, that is) said or didn't say oh so many years ago! It is fun to watch them create mental constuctions to do just that! Better than watching UBC!

[Neeranam]

it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you hold those beliefs lightly with an open mind

That's not how believes work, imo.

On the contrary you should be very firm in your believes so that a minute contact with "infidels" doesn't shatter you to death.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak faith.

Agreed!

[appleman]

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

As to the existence or non-existence of God, it has been said that the Buddha kept a "noble silence".

[chutai]

"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha further explains how he only gives out his secret teachings on the Tathagatagarbha when his disciples are no longer like "small children" of limited capacity and of paltry assimilative power, but have "grown up" and can no longer be satisfied with the simple spiritual food they had initially been fed. While his disciples were still immature, they were only able to "digest" the simple and basic spiritual fare of "suffering, impermanence and non-Self", whereas once they have reached spiritual adulthood they require more spiritual nutriment and are now ready to assimilate the culminational teachings of the Tathagatagarbha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha

All of the above is just an opinion without giving substantive facts or reasons and without giving reference to authoritive sources

The fact is that Shakyamuni delivered his discourse as befited the understanding and comprehension of those he was preaching to. His early discources in the Agama and Agon texts appears to have been delivered to ascetics who were engaged in the practice of various religious austerities , refuting the view of the Brahmans and the so-called six unorthodox reachers or 'freethinkers'. This is why it's absolutely necessary to haver a deeper grasp of the Dharma and to take each with an open mind, unserstanding the more profound meaning in each Sutra.

Otherwise Mahayanists like myself may as well give up - let alone ( the majority on here) of our Theravadan friends and fellow travellers of the path - when upon reading in the Hoben Chapter of the Lotus Sutra that:

"The wisdom of all Buddhas infinately profound and immeasurable. The portal to this wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Neither men of Learning (shomon) nor men of Realization (engaku) are able to comprehend it."

But of course, non of this disproves in any way that Buddhism is non-theistic, as that is generally taken as being given by both Dharma practioners and most Buddhologists alike. And is only a relevant question if we need to point out that perhaps as Behru , one of the disciples of Gandhi said, that the moment Shakyamuni was elevated to be more than a human being by his disciples -- probably out of good intentions -- but, the minute that that happened and Shakyamuni stopped being a human being and became a God, a divinity, something more than you and I, the humanity of Buddhism was lost.

Whether this is correct or not. From a Buddhist perspective, to place the Buddha as someone 'out there' is not only to miss the point but also to be in self-denial.

[Plus]

"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha further explains how he only gives out his secret teachings on the Tathagatagarbha when his disciples are no longer like "small children" of limited capacity and of paltry assimilative power, but have "grown up" and can no longer be satisfied with the simple spiritual food they had initially been fed. While his disciples were still immature, they were only able to "digest" the simple and basic spiritual fare of "suffering, impermanence and non-Self", whereas once they have reached spiritual adulthood they require more spiritual nutriment and are now ready to assimilate the culminational teachings of the Tathagatagarbha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha

All of the above is just an opinion without giving substantive facts or reasons and without giving reference to authoritive sources

Are you questioning the validity of Wikipedia article? The simple fact that this opinion even exist (nevermind whether it's right or wrong) shows that there's no uniform answer.

Sources are publicly available.

Mahaparinirvana sutra:

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/

But actually it's Tathtatagarha sutra that deals with the essense of Buddha as someone "out there".

http://www.webspawner.com/users/bodhisattva/index.html

....

... the moment Shakyamuni was elevated to be more than a human being by his disciples.., the minute that that happened and Shakyamuni stopped being a human being and became a God, a divinity, something more than you and I, the humanity of Buddhism was lost.

Whether this is correct or not. From a Buddhist perspective, to place the Buddha as someone 'out there' is not only to miss the point but also to be in self-denial.

Maybe you should start your own branch to preserve the "humanity" of Buddhism. Then others will accuse you of being in denial of his "divinity".

[chutai]

Are you questioning the validity of Wikipedia article? The simple fact that this opinion even exist (nevermind whether it's right or wrong) shows that there's no uniform answer.

I always question what is written in Wikipedia. A lot is accurate, other entries less so.

Sources are publicly available.

Mahaparinirvana sutra:

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/

http://www.webspawner.com/users/bodhisattva/index.html

But actually it's Tathtatagarha sutra that deals with the essense of Buddha as someone "out there".

Neither of those Mahayana Sutras claim the divinity of Shakyamuni as far as I can see. In fact to do so would be contrary to Mahayana itself. So you'll need to point out what you passages that you're referring to for me to try and explain what was meant. Although it's the Lotus Sutra (and to a lesser extent the Vimalakirti Sutra) that is universally considered to be the Jewel in the Mahayana crown.

Maybe you should start your own branch to preserve the "humanity" of Buddhism. Then others will accuse you of being in denial of his "divinity".

I, and others , have already explained to you that Buddhism is non-theistic by using what quotes are available in the Sutras. We can do no more if you refuse to let go of the notion -- even when confronted with the evidence.

As for Buddhist humanism based upon Compassion and Wisdom. There's no need to begin any "new branch" as that is thriving and has been for thousands of years. It's called the Bodhisattvas of the World ideal. Even some parts of the Theravadan tradition are seeing the need to -- and are-- now becoming more 'socially engaged'. Although possibly not with the same ultimate motivation ?

cf.The monks in Burma and elsewhere.

Edited November 12, 2007 by chutai

[Samuian]

on this topic I really like to quote Krishnamurti:

"If all the Buddhists there are, would have understood the teachings of the Buddha, there wouldn't be ANY Buddhism!"

So and this answers (IMHO) the question of the OP nicely!

Has one ever heard the clap of a single hand?

[Plus]

I always question what is written in Wikipedia. A lot is accurate, other entries less so.

As I said, the mere fact that someone wrote that entry means that there are at least different opinions on the subject. I'd rather try to understand and possibley reconcile both rather than declare only one to be THE TRUTH and discard the other. Maybe you feel fully convinced yourself, I don't.

Neither of those Mahayana Sutras claim the divinity of Shakyamuni as far as I can see. In fact to do so would be contrary to Mahayana itself. So you'll need to point out what you passages that you're referring to for me to try and explain what was meant.

I agree if you mean that God in our thread refers to historical Shakyamuni. As far as I understand Tathatagarbha speaks of Divinity of which Shakyamuni was probably only one manifestation.

More from Wiki:

The Tathagatagarbha Sutra presents the Tathagatagarbha as a virtual Buddha-homunculus, a fully wisdom-endowed Buddha, inviolable, seated majestically in the lotus posture within the body of each being , clearly visible only to a perfect Buddha. This is the most "personalist" depiction of the Tathagatagarbha encountered in any of the chief Tathagatagarbha sutras and is imagistically reminiscent of Mahayana descriptions of the Buddha himself sitting in the lotus posture within his own mother's womb prior to birth: "luminous, glorious, gracious, beautiful to see, seated with his legs crossed" and shining "like pure gold ..." (Lalita Vistara Sutra, "Voice of Buddha", Dharma Publishing, 1983, p.109)). Thus the Tathagatagarbha is only an "embryo" in the sense that it is hidden from worldly view, at the very centre of each being, while yet being perfect, unchanging and complete.

The Tathagatagarbha doctrine is also presented as an antidote to a false, nihilistic understanding of Emptiness (Shunyata), wherein even Nirvana and the Buddha are (from the perspective of these scriptures) wrongly viewed as illusory and unreal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha

[longway]

If Buddhists don't believe in God then what causes reincarnation? Who judges what you come back as? Buddhists believe that nothing comes from nothing and every living thing has existed before. Where did those living things come from?

My understanding is that Buddhism is a results oriented concept....the idea is that we can end the unsatisfactoriness which pervades our lives. Things which will not further that goal are not taught. The Buddha is reported to have said that the ONLY thing he taught is the end of suffering and if it doesn't further that end he doesn't teach it. Kamma is seen as simply how the world works and not explanation is needed...in fact it is taught that humans can not comprehend the exact workings of kamma and to try to do so leads to instability of the mind. As to the beginning of life or the universe, this too is considered an imponderable and is a waste of time to consider as the answer in unknowable and has nothing to do with the end of suffering.

I want to be clear the when I say that the Buddha taught the end of "suffering" you must realize that the actual word he used was "dukkha" which is Pali language and suffering is a word often used but is really not a very accurate translation for dukkha....dukkha is more like a combination of suffering, inadequacy, discomfort, struggle, pain, unease, disquiet, stress, unsatisfactoriness, etc.

Chownah

an interesting thread, and i hope i can comment on it in a way that adds something to it. if i am getting something wrong i am sure i will be pulled up on it...

as chownah, i think, implied god is not relevant to buddhism (as i know it anyway). the buddha found that nirvana existed within himself, whether this experience is connected with god is not important; he experienced nirvana without any communication or relationship with god, well he certainly made no mention it. if god is the source of nirvana; so be it, it doesnt really matter.

the buddha then told us what he felt was the best way for others to learn to experience nirvana: the 8 fold path. there is nothing about god in this teaching, which is central to buddhist practice.

the difference between buddhism and god based religions i think is as follows:

religions tell us to cling is something beyond us, something that our souls need to return to or commune to find lasting happiness. buddhism has no such requirement, and afaik this clinging will not help us along the path, though perhaps for many people it is not the worst thing to cling too.

whether there is a god or not, it has no bearing on ending dukkha

Edited November 13, 2007 by longway

[longway]

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

As to the existence or non-existence of God, it has been said that the Buddha kept a "noble silence".

this is what i think too, and put alot more succintly than my post.

[longway]

Is it me or is there a subliminal 'disrespect christianity, while championing Buddhism?' vibe that I sometimes pick up in some members posts?

I know this is going OT moderators but as we don't have a Christianity section to voice this matter, when personal opinions come out If think it's only right folk like Canuckamuck and myself come on to present the 'other' side of the argument by giving our own personal opinions from time to time

/Off Topic.

Be cool folks.

speaking for myself. it has been more than a subliminal disrespect. however i hope now i better understand the buddha's stance on respecting all peoples' beliefs. to counter however i would like to point out that chistians are also guilty of disrespect to buddhism, this is a general comment, not specifically referring to this thread.

[jamesc2000]

However, while it is proving very difficult to prove that God (whatever that word "God" may mean to the 6 billion folks on the planet at present) does not exist;

I don't understand this statement that its is very difficult to prove that God does not exist!

You mean its easier to prove that God does exist? Please prove it then!

[longway]

"I count your Brahma one th' unjust among,

Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."

-- JĀTAKA

can one not interprept those passages as specifically referenced to brahma as a creator god? i think buddhism is clear on what is not god, as a response to the dominant religion in that area. ie ridiculing the idea of a first cause, rather than commenting on "God" which is something beyond our comprehension currently, as is Nirvana.

btw i dont know how to refer back to your whole post without copy/paste the whole thing.

Edited November 13, 2007 by longway

[chutai]

As I said, the mere fact that someone wrote that entry means that there are at least different opinions on the subject. I'd rather try to understand and possibley reconcile both rather than declare only one to be THE TRUTH and discard the other. Maybe you feel fully convinced yourself, I don't.

Dharma literally means 'truth'. In Buddhism there is no truth which cannot be tested as being so. In fact Shakyamuni told his disiples not to accept anything as given without first testing it's validity for themselves. You wish to reconcile something which is not part of Buddhhism, i.e. that there is a supreme being who is the intial cause. Buddhism teaches that there is only the eternal. That is no beginning and no end , only the dependent origination of all phenemona. One either accepts Buddhism as being distinct from all other religions in its reliance on self-effort alone, or one rejects it. But in essence Buddhism does not accommodate a compromise by giving any creedence to attaining enlightnment outside of ones self.

I agree if you mean that God in our thread refers to historical Shakyamuni. As far as I understand Tathatagarbha speaks of Divinity of which Shakyamuni was probably only one manifestation.

True. Shakyamuni was the historical Buddha who was a manifestation of something that has always existed, i.e. Buddhaood. The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth. That is, we all possess the innate potential for the same manifestation.

To get any deeper into the why and wherefore of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is also to accept the doctrine of expedient means. That is, to whom was the Sutra aimed and why.

Frankly, it seems pointless to get into finer nuances of the development of only a part of Chinese Mahayana in particular, if first we don't grasp the fundamental philosophy and practice of Buddhism first. Otherwise it becomes no more than showing a plate of food without actuallly eating what's on it.

Gassho

Edited November 13, 2007 by chutai

[Plus]

Knowledge of that "Divine Buddha" is way beyond our comprehension and his exact nature and relationships to the world we see matters little to us.

For all practical purposes we can safely assume that it doesn't exist at all, if it makes people more comfortable. I mean if people need to know that there's no God in Buddhism before they consider practicing it, so be it.

I think it's better to accept Buddhism for what it is rather than for "beign distinct from all other religions", but, whatever works, everyone has his own reasons.

[Oleg_Rus]

did a child say there is no electricity, ot it just doesn't matter ? {what he said}

[Samuian]

"is it or isn't it ?" = duality = diverseness

Did he or didn't he....?

How can we ever know if we keep asking questions!

Our minds are too busy on formulating these questions over and over again - instead of listening to the answer!

[Plus]

He was quite clear about that - these questions do not lead to enlightment.

Sometimes I take this injunction seriously, sometimes it sounds very ironic.

[JimsKnight]

Lord Buddha was probably more concerned with things that went on in this plane of existence and thats where his teachings tend to concentrate, hence a reason for this topic

[chutai]

Lord Buddha was probably more concerned with things that went on in this plane of existence and thats where his teachings tend to concentrate, hence a reason for this topic

Hence the reference to Lord Buddha as in the fuedal model ? So, there's Lord of the Manor, Lord Jesus, Lord Shakyamuni Buddha and we are the peasants of faith I guess.

[sabaijai]

the buddha found that nirvana existed within himself, whether this experience is connected with god is not important; he experienced nirvana without any communication or relationship with god,

good point.

[AYJAYDEE]

exactly which god are you talking about? i have always thought that he recognized the existance of many many gods but that none of them were any more permanent or in possession of an unchanging "self" or essence than you or I.

[Plus]

he experienced nirvana without any communication or relationship with god,

Hindus believe he was God himself, btw, one of the ten "playful" avatars.

As for lesser gods populating buddhist universe - what would our atheist buddhists say if they ever ahieve the level on which communicating with these gods is possible?

Western culture doesn't even have a word for people who believe in miltiple gods. "Idolatry" doesn't really begin to describe it, it conjures images of half naked cannibals dancing aroung wooden totems, not of interacting with the being that controls the air, for example.

On our present level we are all atheists, so to speak - we rely more on faith than on any direct knowledge of God, gods, or anything supernatural.

[camerata]

Western culture doesn't even have a word for people who believe in miltiple gods.

"Polytheist" should cover it. But I don't think Theravadin Buddhists can be considered polytheists because the celestial beings of the various realms don't fit the usual definition of a "god" as:

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

[AYJAYDEE]

Buddha specifically instructed others not to believe wha others said, including him, but to believe only what one can observe for oneself. hardly brainwashing.

[Plus]

Western culture doesn't even have a word for people who believe in miltiple gods.

"Polytheist" should cover it. But I don't think Theravadin Buddhists can be considered polytheists because the celestial beings of the various realms don't fit the usual definition of a "god" as:

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Do you mean the part about "worshipped"?

I bet if people had a chance they'd besiege these "gods" with all sorts of requests and all sorts of offerings in exchange. Just look at Chatukam craze.

Ideally they shouldn't be bothered with wordly phenomena like "gods", but such is the human nature.

Politheist is really the word, true, but its Greek-Egyptian origins are more of a mythology than religion and the rest are still percieved as animistic rituals.

[camerata]

Do you mean the part about "worshipped"?

That and "thought to control some part of nature or reality." The usual idea of a "god" is a being that had a separate origin from humans, has the power to intervene in human affairs and expects to be worshiped or propitiated. So according to the doctrine there's no way Theravadin Buddhists can be considered polytheists.

I bet if people had a chance they'd besiege these "gods" with all sorts of requests and all sorts of offerings in exchange. Just look at Chatukam craze.

To me the Jatukam craze just seems to be the old belief in power objects and with a very tenuous link to Buddhism - that some ancient king is claimed to have been a bodhisatta. In practice, I think it would be difficult to worship the celestial beings of (Theravada) Buddhism because they aren't known as individuals. From memory I think the main ones mentioned by name in the Pali Canon are Brahma and Sakka, and Brahma is already worshiped not so much as a Buddhist "god" but as a remnant of Brahmanical belief from when Siam was part of the Angkorean empire. It's kind of interesting that Thais don't worship Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be. But I guess that's because Maitreya is associated with future salvation rather than current-life prosperity.

[jumnien]

Most God people believe in a kind and loving God of their understanding; most Buddhists believe in loving kindness. Not too much to quarrel over. Of course some God people believe in a vengeful wrathful God and some Buddhists believe that karma will ruthlessly punish those who act undharmically.

[Plus]

Do you mean the part about "worshipped"?

That and "thought to control some part of nature or reality." The usual idea of a "god" is a being that had a separate origin from humans, has the power to intervene in human affairs and expects to be worshiped or propitiated. So according to the doctrine there's no way Theravadin Buddhists can be considered polytheists.

Various Devas DO control various aspects of the universe, I believe. Chatukam characters are devas, in Thai view. If their Sri Lankan origins are correct, than they are celestial warriors.

Buddhists are not supposed to worship them, true, I meant that most people won't miss the chance if they could get substantial returns.

Politheism is still a western concept. Hindus are politeists by that definition but they do not really worship multiple gods , they use each one for specific purpose. There's hierarchy among their gods but those in search of ulitmate deity still do not dare to offend "lesser" gods by compeltely abandoning them.

Their system describes the universe rather than their mode of worship, as the word politheist does.

As Brahman is generally accepted as the ultimate reality, those gods do not truly exist, they are "maya", illusion. Same applies to Buddhists, afaik.

[camerata]

Various Devas DO control various aspects of the universe, I believe. Chatukam characters are devas, in Thai view. If their Sri Lankan origins are correct, than they are celestial warriors.

This sounds more like Hinduism than Buddhism to me. In Hinduism the Asuras and Devas are constantly at war.

Buddhists are not supposed to worship them, true, I meant that most people won't miss the chance if they could get substantial returns.

Presumably, then, the fact that Buddhists don't worship celestial beings is proof that there are no substantial returns to be had because they are considered not to have a god's power to intervene in human affairs. Anyway, what provable substantial return can one get from worshiping anything anywhere? Only psychological security and social acceptance, as far as I can see.

As Brahman is generally accepted as the ultimate reality, those gods do not truly exist, they are "maya", illusion. Same applies to Buddhists, afaik.

No, that's not the case in Buddhism. The "gods" are ex-humans and humans-to-be. They are beings just like us, but at a different stage in the cycle of samsara. All Buddhists will be born in a celestial realm some day. If the celestial realms and their inhabitants were illusions, the whole concept of rebirth would be negated. Whether we believe in these realms as "out there" somewhere or simply states of mind, they are still real. Perhaps you are thinking of the apocryphal buddhas and bodhisattvas of Mahayana, which are considered at the highest level of understanding to be personifications of a principle or quality.