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

[Plus]

No no no, I mean they are no more real or illusory as we are ourselves.

In Hinduism there ARE devas that control various forces within the universe, just as there are many who are simply lazy bums enjoying their lives, and they too love to fight with asuras. The Churning of the Milk Ocean sculpture at the new airport is a perfect example.

Maybe ALL Buddhist devas are disengaged from running this place, maybe not. So far it seems the only difference.

As for benefits - you won't get any unless you can truly contact them, which is nearly impossible in this day and age. People try, and have great faith in these kind of ceremonies -anuimism, shamanism, etc. but I bet they target some low ranked deities, not the really important ones.

[rychrde]

I repeat my post from one of the previous pages, it looks like it wa overlooked or didn't propely register...

Samantabhadra: " ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One."

in Dzogchen Samantabhadra is the Primordial Buddha and, as referenced in that wiki article, is synonymous with the state of 'rigpa'. If you do a search on rigpa you will find the anthropomorphic imagery removed. It is common for states of mind to be given images. This is supposed to help in meditation, although often the case of westerners is that removing the unfamiliar imagery and focusing on the mind, colour, location etc is actually more effective. Anyway, rigpa is the primordial, pure state of mind, which can be experienced, it is not a deity out there. If you're concerned that the text sounds like it is making Samantabhadra into a monotheistic deity, all I can say is that no Tibetan I have heard has ever mentioned Samantabhadra in that way. Depending on the text, it is also a standard tantric technique to meditating on oneself becoming some great powerful manifestation, and the text will go into great details about this. It is important to read the punchline at the end. It is most likely designed to shed those rich ornaments, symbols of some mental qualities. Indeed, in Dzogchen Samantabhadra is usually naked, and usually in union with Samantabhadri - a symbol of both the end and the beginning.

rych

[jumnien]

Many folks in the West think of God not as some old dude in a cloak, but live by the philosophy that God is Love; that's certainly what I was taught in Sunday school. Love is not that incomprehensible to the buddhist sentiment by any means.

Peace.

[jamesc2000]

Many folks in the West think of God not as some old dude in a cloak, but live by the philosophy that God is Love; that's certainly what I was taught in Sunday school. Love is not that incomprehensible to the buddhist sentiment by any means.

Peace.

Do many folks in the west still go to church? I am not sure if it is true but I heard that more people in Moscow attend church on Sunday than in the whole of England!

I also heard that 1% of people in England list their religion as Jedi!

[Nudee]

I am buddhist all my life and I don't think buddha rejected the existence of god. Rather he rejected the existence of everything. No you, no me, no everything and that's the implication by non-buddhists that he rejected the existence of god.

In buddhism, you and me (and everything else) is only a "state" of your "soul/conciousness" derived from "nescience". Lord Buddha seeked the way for human to extinguish suffering.

This is what the theory behind everything Lord buddha discovered:

avidya ( nescience) is the cause of sangkaanra (Mental formation)

sangkaanra (Mental formation) is the cause of winyaana (conciousness)

winyaana (conciousness) is the cause of roopa (Physical form which has given rise to the body)

roopa is the cause of ayatana (Sense)

ayatana is the cause of passa (touch, mental impression)

passa is the cause of wetanaa (feelings and sensation)

wetanaa is the cause of tanha (craving)

tanhaa is the cause of upadana (attachment)

upadana is the ucase of bhava (sould state)

bhava is the cause of chart (becoming, existence)

chart is the cause of dukkha (suffering)

(Sorry if I made wrong romanized Bali here. )

Buddha was teaching how to eleminate dukkha (suffering) and to do that you need to trace back to the root cause by just reverse the above until you can eliminate avidya and that's when you are in nippan state (farangs called it nirvana).

You can reach temporaty nippan by either:

1) environmentally. If you take a closer look in yourself, you will find some moment when you are in state of no feeling (good or bad). It will not last but it's the state of nippan

2) you can force it (thorugh meditation etc). This is also temporary nippan. You learn how to immitate the state of nippan by force.

3) you can learn it. This is the permanent nippan state when you use your wisdom/insigh learning by practice how to eliminate the cause of your dukkha until you found nothing (anatta, non-self). It's hard but according to several arahants, it can be done while you are alife.

I am far from nippan, but this is all what I've learned and think essential. All other things (four nobles, etc) are just only the theory for different type of people (with different wisdom) to understand the Dhamma. You have to understand that Busshism is more than 2500 year olds. Some theory was added along to help people understanding it better, but most of them just make people more confuse (like this theory of god rejection) :-)

So, if this question of the lord buddha really rejected the existence of god is important to you then you really are suffering :-)

[jumnien]

I've always sort of enjoyed the images of Buddha who is usually portrayed to be young, beautiful, lean with a lovely smile and sense of peace about him. I just had this comical image come to mind of a fat, old, cantankerous fellow in a rage muttering to himself that this "God" guy doesn't exist at all, not at all, god dammit, did you hear me, not at all.... Laughter is the best medicine!

[Brucenkhamen]

I've always sort of enjoyed the images of Buddha who is usually portrayed to be young, beautiful, lean with a lovely smile and sense of peace about him. I just had this comical image come to mind of a fat, old, cantankerous fellow in a rage muttering to himself that this "God" guy doesn't exist at all, not at all, god dammit, did you hear me, not at all.... Laughter is the best medicine!

...and don't get him started on the price of petrol.

[Plus]

I repeat my post from one of the previous pages, it looks like it wa overlooked or didn't propely register...

Samantabhadra: " ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One."

..

It is common for states of mind to be given images. This is supposed to help in meditation

Who gets to decide when scriptures describe actual reality and when they trick you into painting mental meditation aids? Do you fully trust that person(s)? Why should you?

I do understand your point, but the actual existence of some "all-creating" entity is a far from closed issue, subject to interpretations.

[camerata]

I just came across this comprehensive resource on the subject: The Buddhist Attitude to God.

A couple of quotes:

"But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good."

"A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena without exemption (including all animate beings) have three essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained above), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (insubstantiality, "no-soul"). The attributes of God are not consistent with these universal marks of existence. Thus God must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not subject to anicca); finally he must have a distinct unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of anatta)."

And a gem from Nagarjuna:

"The gods are all eternal scoundrels

Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.

Those who serve them and venerate them

May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.

We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;

Therefore the wise man believes them not

The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions

Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods."

[fabianfred]

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?

Since the past and future are both infinite...there has been an infinite number of Buddhas.... although they are extremely rare

[fabianfred]

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?

Arahants who are yet to die in this, their final existence in Samsara

[fabianfred]

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.

The Buddha knew anything and everything he wanted to know........ he once picked up a handful of leaves and asked his companions to compare it with all the leaves in the forest.....saying that this was what he taught...compared with all his knowledge....what is irrelevant to the path to Nirvana he didn't teach

[fabianfred]

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?

rebirth in Samsara is caused by our own karma.....which we create now and have created in the past...... karma is the link between successive existences in all the 31 planes in Samsara.... it causes us to be reborn in the various planes....and when the karma which caused us to be reborn in that existence is used up then we will take rebirth in another plane or existence, depending which karma is able to bear fruit..

This is why existence in samsara is just up and down between different planes....uncontrolled...... until we listen to a Buddha's teaching...

I liken it to sitting in the back-seat of a car...with no driver....going out of control in any direction

But if we listen to the dhamma and make the effort to practice it.... it is as if we have leaned over and grabbed the steering-wheel....and are directing our life on a positive course

[fabianfred]

My personal opinion is that organized religion is the worst threat mankind has ever faced. Christianity and Islam being the main culprits. Blind belief in a couple of books that were written many years ago then interpretted to fit whatever circumstances the (re) writer intended.

Buddhism got my interest after I had come over here to work. One of the bosses (owners son) made terrible decisions and treated his workers like they were machines with no feelings. At first I was vocal voicing my opinion. I quickly learned that being vocal was not a effective way to change things. During a meeting with several of the Thai engineers, I was upset that one of my recommendations was ignored. I then made the statement that if the boss had not been born rich, he would have starved to death by now. The meeting room became deathly still. The best engineer of the group sat beside me and explained that I had insulted their boss and their religion. I was told that the boss was a VERY good man in his previous life/lives and being born wealthy was his just reward. I then asked if that meant that the boss could do no wrong and that was greeted with nods and smiles. That group of guys are highly educated and very Buddhist. They will shape the future of Thailand. I found that quite alarming. I was forced to change my methods and did become more effective because of it. It certainly wasn't easy because I was very prone to yell and scream when someone did something stupid. Maybe they are correct. My pulse rate slowed and my high blood pressure dropped considerably.

a typical example of incorrect understanding......

sure the guy was born wealthy because of good karma from his past....which is no guarantee he will act good now...

the buddha said there are four kinds of people.....those who come from the light and go to the light/ come from the light and go to the dark/ come from the dark and go to the light/ come from the dark and go to the dark

also it is why the buddha said it is harder for a rich person to reach nirvana than for an Elephant to go through the eye of a needle

[fabianfred]

From what little I know, is that Buddha is not a God. He was merely a monk who prayed, did good and reached Nirvana.

he was a man....not a monk..... the men who became monks were ordained as followers of his rules and teachings

he was also an extraordinary man....who had followed the Boddhisattva path for billions and billions of aeons in order to achieve that aim (Buddhahood) in order to be able to teach and help many others to attain freedom

[IMA_FARANG]

Did Buddha say there was no God (note the Capital G) or did it just not matter?

Answer: I don't know. For me however, is that the question is irrelevant, because I don't regard Buddhisim as a Religion, but a philosophy of understganding of one's nature. Therfore to me, the question of God (again capital G), is not important to my Buddhisim. So I just ignore the question of the existance of God.

As for the opinions of other Buddhists, here is a story. It is actually a Taoist story ( I believe), but it seems appropriate here.

A rich man goes on a long trip, leaving his house in the control of his trusted servant. When he is returning home, he sees his servant running up to him.

"Oh Master", says the servant,"A great calamity has occured while you were gone. Some disease has broken out in your house. All your family has become insane. Your wife dreams of nothing but clothes and new dresses. Your daughter imagines that all men love her, and she spends all her days dreaming of love. Your two young children care only for play, they will not attend school, or do the lessons."

"But is there no medicine for this strange disease?", asks the rich man.

"Yes indeed there is",says the servant,"and the doctor has been here. But because of the disease, none of your family will take the medicine."

So the rich man goes home to his family. He gets them to take the medicine they need, and when they do, all of them get well.

For his wife, he tells her that if she takes the medicine she will get all the beautiful dresses she disires. So she takes the medicine, and here mind is cleared of her delusions. Therefore she is well.

For his daughter, he tells her if she takes the medicine, all the handsome men will fall in love with her. So she takes the medicine, her mind is cleared, and she loses her mistaken beliefs.

For his children, he tells them that the medicne is magic, and if they take it they will find a wonderful magic world. So they take the medicine, their mind is also cleared, and they become well.

He tells them what they each wish to hear so that they can take the medicine they need. In that way they become well.

In the same way Buddhisim gives each person what they need to remove their delusions.

For those who need it Buddhisim is a Religion...because that is what they need to see and worship to become well.

And for those who need it...there is a God....so they can accept it and become well.

The goal is just to become well...and when that is done....nothing else is needed.

Think about it.

Edited May 11, 2009 by IMA_FARANG

[phetaroi]

...Therefore to me, the question of God (again capital G), is not important to my Buddhisim. So I just ignore the question of the existance of God.

...

In the same way Buddhisim gives each person what they need to remove their delusions. For those who need it Buddhisim is a Religion...because that is what they need to see and worship to become well. And for those who need it...there is a God....so they can accept it and become well. The goal is just to become well...and when that is done....nothing else is needed.

Think about it.

I like what you have pointed out. My limited understanding is that Buddhists do not spend time thinking about things that can never be proved or disproved. On the other hand, each of us is free (unlike in Catholicism, for example) to use our own logic to figure out the world for ourselves. I believe in God because I cannot logically explain a world without a god. However, those who believe differently...well, we'll all find out sooner or later...or not.

[Sheryl]

This is a very difficult discussion to have because "god"has so many different meanings to different people...who tend to assume that their understanding of the word is a universal one.

In the time and place of the Buddha, the Judeo-Christian concept of god did not exist. Rather there were gods plural who whose role and function differed significantly from that of the Judeo-Christian creator. basically just beings at a higher plane than ourselves and with higher powers.

As I read it, the Buddha neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such beings; they weren't really relevant to his teaching. He did at times refer to them but I think that was more by way of framing things in the context of common understandings rather than trying to reinforce the idea that they existed.

As for issues that come closer to the Judeo-Christian God concept (e.g. how did the world begin, is it eternal etc) he generally refused to discuss such matters.

Of course,some thinkers in the Judeo-Christian tradition went considerably beyond the conventional view of a God as a supra-human type of being, father figure, creator etc and talked about things like a "godhead", or god as a type of force of goodness, love etc. When you take it to that level of understanding -- analagous to the what some would call a "higher power" -- it could be seen as synymous with the Buddhist concept of the Dhamma.

[agent69]

Nice post, Sheryl.

[tranquillize]

A rich man goes on a long trip, leaving his house in the control of his trusted servant. When he is returning home, he sees his servant running up to him.

"Oh Master", says the servant,"A great calamity has occured while you were gone. Some disease has broken out in your house. All your family has become insane. Your wife dreams of nothing but clothes and new dresses. Your daughter imagines that all men love her, and she spends all her days dreaming of love. Your two young children care only for play, they will not attend school, or do the lessons."

"But is there no medicine for this strange disease?", asks the rich man.

"Yes indeed there is",says the servant,"and the doctor has been here. But because of the disease, none of your family will take the medicine."....

I like this story, but i can see the moral being applied in several different ways. One can argue that the "medicine" is god. Telling people there is a god who can fix all their problems or fulfill their wishes can make these people feel that they are cured. The "cure" is a delusion of course so is not a real cure.

I prefer the method of the Buddha, the removal of delusions and false understandings to assist in the awakening process