Back To The Beginning

[camerata]

Let’s start with probably the most-asked question about the Pali canon: Are these the words of the historical Buddha?

Yes and no. No, because the dialect of the canon is probably a few generations removed from the dialect of the Buddha, and because we are hearing the Buddha’s words through the recollection of Ananda. But the linguistic differences are minimal, and Ananda is said to have had a terrific memory, so the answer is also largely yes. In the culture of the time, the teachers’ words were listened to with close attention. Memorization was considered a more reliable repository for the teachings than writing. And there was a strong incentive to carefully preserve what the Buddha said rather than to innovate.

How is that known?

One example is found in an Abhidhamma text called Points of Controversy, which records debates held at the Third Council [circa 250 B.C.E.] between eighteen schools of early Buddhism. Almost two hundred and fifty years after the death of the Buddha, the debaters all quoted from the same texts. There seemed to be no disagreement at all about what the Buddha said, just about how his words should be interpreted. Also, when you compare the Pali texts to corresponding sections of the later canons, the agreement of content is remarkable.

Few dharma students today have studied the Pali canon, and it’s not widely studied in the academy. How did it become so marginalized?

One of the great Mahayana innovations was seeing the Buddha not as one particular man in ancient India but as someone signifying transformation brought about by wisdom. Thus Buddha could manifest as any number of people in any number of eras and cultures. What’s most important is the Buddha’s wisdom, not so much the man who was once a prince of the Shakyas. So from the perspective of those schools that came after the Buddha, they did not repudiate the Pali canon, but set it aside for teachings from living Buddhist masters who were considered more relevant spokespeople for the awakened mind. That’s what keeps the tradition vital and evolving. Even today, the contemporary idiom of living teachers is generally considered more useful than the words of the historical Buddha.

Does the canon offer something we can’t find elsewhere?

I think so. As the Buddha’s teachings grew into a religion and took on newer modes of expression, they lost some of their unique qualities. Some of these go back to the Shramana movement, which the Buddha participated in and contributed to. The Shramanas were wandering ascetics who rejected all the beliefs of the brahmins that could not be tested empirically. Through meditative and yogic practices, they developed an extremely sophisticated knowledge of the human mind and body, some of which is embedded in the Pali canon. The Mahayana was primarily a popular movement, regarding much of the old knowledge as esoteric and elitist, and it thrived on the simplification of the early teachings. The more intellectually rigorous teachings of the early schools, such as the Abhidhamma (which organized the early teachings around the phenomenology of meditative experience), were preserved in the work of the Mahayana philosophers, but much of their writing was a critique of the early systems.

Full article from Tricycle.

[Brucenkhamen]

There was a bit of hoo-haa on Dhammawheel about this, but I thought it a very good article.

[sabaijai]

Me too.

[Xangsamhua]

To me it was a very helpful article, open-minded and generous in spirit - and blessedly readable. I wonder if Olendzki's freshness and clarity, not to say charity, has something to do with him being a layman. He brings a layman's voice and a layman's breadth of vision to the discussion, in addition to his scholarship in the field.

I noted in particular the following:

(1) I don't consider many of the philosophical and metaphysical positions of these traditions [Pure Land, Zen, Tantra] to be what the historical Buddha was teaching. ... This is simply a matter of intellectual clarity, not a critique of later developments.

(2) There are a thousand ways each day to become a more mindful, kind, generous and noble person. And there are a thousand ways each day in which your doing so will influence others and contribute to reducing the suffering of all beings.

(3) On one hand lies the danger of merely reciting beliefs that were forged in another place and time and are no longer alive to us in a useful way; on the other hand we might create a Buddha who utters only teachings that are comfortable for a white middle-class ... sensibility. The "middle way" here involves using classical maps [the Pali Canon] to explore experience, while maintaining a critical spirit and a good deal of common sense.

I haven't been able to get into Dhammawheel yet (problem with the server), but would be interested to know what the hoo-ha was about.

[phetaroi]

To me it was a very helpful article, open-minded and generous in spirit - and blessedly readable. I wonder if Olendzki's freshness and clarity, not to say charity, has something to do with him being a layman. He brings a layman's voice and a layman's breadth of vision to the discussion, in addition to his scholarship in the field.

I noted in particular the following:

...

(2) There are a thousand ways each day to become a more mindful, kind, generous and noble person. And there are a thousand ways each day in which your doing so will influence others and contribute to reducing the suffering of all beings.

(3) On one hand lies the danger of merely reciting beliefs that were forged in another place and time and are no longer alive to us in a useful way; on the other hand we might create a Buddha who utters only teachings that are comfortable for a white middle-class ... sensibility. The "middle way" here involves using classical maps [the Pali Canon] to explore experience, while maintaining a critical spirit and a good deal of common sense.

I like your reflection on the article. Here are a few of my own:

I am glad to see that the author is somewhat realistic about whether or not the words in the Dhamma are actually the words of Buddha. He at least sees that the dialect is questionable, although I have less faith than he that Ananda and those who wrote what Ananda said are so accurate. Just knowing human nature and linguistics, it's my opinion that the Dhamma is, at best, a good sense of what Buddha taught.

I very much like what he says about Buddhism needing to be “vital and evolving”. Today's world is not at all the same as the one in which Siddhartha lived. Many principles are the same, as are some traits of mankind. When I was a boy and would sit through endless sermons in the Methodist Church, I would actually think that these stories mean nothing to me...I have almost nothing in common with the people in these stories. And that is why I question the validity of only listening to the Dhamma. Perhaps that feeling of not being related in any way to the centuries-old stories is why so few of the Buddhist faithful actually ever read the Dhamma. And, that is not a very good omen if one is thinking about the preservation of the principles. There are many interpretive writings that can bring the Dhamma to life in today's world. Admittedly, interpretive writings will result in an evolution of the original intent.

Interesting that he says, “As the Buddha’s teachings grew into a religion....” I also like the way that he frequently says things such as, “As I understand...”...this is refreshing compared to some of the dogmatic comments I see from one or two members of our own forum. I also like that he points out that, “As the tradition developed, other transformative practices were added, and many of these were adapted from other religious traditions.” We often seem to hear from people who basically say that either you are “all Buddhist” or you are “not Buddhist at all”. It is interesting to me that he points out that, “Comparative religion shows that humans are religious creatures in fairly predictable and consistent ways. Almost everything seen in any of the other religions exists equally in Buddhism: pilgrimage, prayer, afterlife belief systems, and so on.” He balances that by pointing out that over time, and because of that, “Buddhism ends up losing some of its most distinct features.”

“...Buddha’s injunction to investigate the textures and nuances of our experience very carefully, understand which impulses are noble and which are nasty, and undertake a process of purification, or, as the Buddha said, “Pluck out the thorn of desire that lies embedded in your heart.” And you can do that by understanding how desire pollutes the mind from moment to moment, and thereby radically transform yourself into an organism that is free of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion.” – a very good summary of the essence of Buddha's teachings...in my humble opinion. As is, “the washing technique was basically meditation—meditation as a way of seeing yourself more clearly, understanding what’s wholesome and what’s unwholesome.”

“The main thing I think the Buddha was saying about the self is that it is neither personal nor sacred. There is a unique and relatively stable set of habits and patterns that each of us as humans develops to organize our experience and to get by in the world. The Buddha does not say that they do not exist. Rather, he’s saying those patterns are constructed by actions and are held together by various conditions, there’s nothing essential or enduring about them...He was not arguing against the self, but against the tendency we have to substantialize the self.” Again, in my opinion, a very sensible interpretation of “self”.

When he says, “We want to investigate the early texts and practices in ways people find personally relevant and meaningful, but we need to be careful not simply to plug ancient Buddhist information into our contemporary belief systems. On one hand lies the danger of merely reciting beliefs that were forged in another place and time and are no longer alive to us in a useful way; on the other hand we might create a Buddha who utters only teachings that are comfortable for a white middle-class American baby-boomer sensibility. The “middle way” here involves using classical maps to explore experience, while maintaining a critical spirit and a good deal of common sense,” I really like this and feel I must think about the concept further.

[Brucenkhamen]

I haven't been able to get into Dhammawheel yet (problem with the server), but would be interested to know what the hoo-ha was about.

I assume it wasn't the article as a whole.

Rather it was that Ticycle sent the paragraph beginning "One of the great Mahayana innovations was seeing the Buddha not as one particular man in ancient India but as someone signifying transformation brought about by wisdom." out as a daily dhamma message.

Out of context it looked like an encouragement to do away with reliance on scripture and the historical Buddha when in fact it was an explanation as to why there wasn't so much reliance on scripture and the historical Buddha these days.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you Brucenkhamen.

It seems that those concerned saw the two perspectives on the Buddha - as an historical figure and as one who signified transformation through wisdom - as mutually opposed. I wonder why.

And why would they see the emblematic, symbolic significance of the Buddha as a deterrent to study of the scriptures (the Canon) and the life of the Buddha, so far as we can retrieve it from scriptural and other written and physical records?

Or is it that this is what is actually happening - a mythic, mystical Buddha is taking the place of the historical one among some Buddhists and those who prefer this kind of Buddha do not see the need to study or ground their myth in reality (mythos no longer complements logos, but replaces it ).

There are people on this forum (myself included) who would not be distraught if it were shown that the historical Buddha never actually lived in the form we've been led to believe (we already know he wasn't a "prince" of a Sakya "kingdom" and that his death was much later than originally believed, and we're not sure if he was born in the Nepalese site of Kapilavatthu), but I doubt that would discourage us from reading the Pali Canon and using it as a vital reference in leading our lives.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

Or is it that this is what is actually happening - a mythic, mystical Buddha is taking the place of the historical one among some Buddhists and those who prefer this kind of Buddha do not see the need to study or ground their myth in reality (mythos no longer complements logos, but replaces it ).

I think it was that the Tricycle quote out of context implied the above.

Personally I put more reliance on modern teachers than scripture, though I take comfort that my modern teachers refer to the pali canon as standard.

It's not important to me that there may be historical discrepancies but it is important to me that the Buddha was a man who attained the ultimate human attainment, and suggested we do the same. If he is seen as a mythical figure that is still preaching sermons thousands of years after his death then to me that cheapens Buddhism and makes it like any other religion, and moves the attainment from being something human to something mythical.

However the historical person took the name Buddha which means the one who knows, so the word Buddha as an impersonal quality is still relevant today as a description of wisdom, no need to personalise that.

[phetaroi]

Personally I put more reliance on modern teachers than scripture, though I take comfort that my modern teachers refer to the pali canon as standard.

It's not important to me that there may be historical discrepancies but it is important to me that the Buddha was a man who attained the ultimate human attainment, and suggested we do the same. If he is seen as a mythical figure that is still preaching sermons thousands of years after his death then to me that cheapens Buddhism and makes it like any other religion, and moves the attainment from being something human to something mythical.

However the historical person took the name Buddha which means the one who knows, so the word Buddha as an impersonal quality is still relevant today as a description of wisdom, no need to personalise that.

I agree with what I think you are saying about "modern teachers", because over time man must learn to better interpret what it appears that the Buddha taught, and must learn to apply those principles to modern life.

I also agree with you that it is relatively irrelevant if there are a degree of discrepancies related to the true history of Siddhartha. Certainly in the West we have seen the discrepancies about important American historical figures (Washington, Jefferson, and so forth) being brought to the forefront in recent years. None of these discrepancies have, in my view, lessened the historical impact and true legacy of these figures. The same is true about the legacy of Siddhartha/Buddha.

While I say that, I have to question whether or not we KNOW that Siddhartha/Buddha "attained the ultimate human attainment". When we say that, it seems to me that we cross that line over which we are in the territory of "any other religion, and moves the attainment from being something human to something mythical". I can subtract that "ultimate human attainment" and still find among the very wisest teachings of man in what the Buddha attempted to explain to his world.

[Xangsamhua]

The way in which the Buddha is represented in the Pali Canon is hardly as a mere human who has attained awakenness. He is represented as superhuman, attended by gods and other deities, able to see into the distant past, adept at transkinesis, clairvoyant, and so on. And we all know about his magical birth and infancy. Nevertheless, we accept that as mythos, though we may dismiss the mythos of other religions.

I would find it rather disconcerting to discover that the Buddha was not an historical figure, but would not be fazed at all if I learnt that he was just a charismatic teacher who had attained a level of enlightenment that attracted disciples and patrons and had a powerful impact on them. That's fairly much how I see Jesus (though he lost out on the patrons) and, though a different kind of leader, Muhammad (whose "patrons", the competing factions in Medina, actually handed the leadership over to him). The myth builds up as the disciples and their successors establish the religion and the myth may come to replace the reality, at least in the minds of simple, pre-modern people.

If a religion is "cheapened" by belief that in some way the founder or cult-object still plays a role in our lives (e.g. by visitations, answering prayers, or inspiration in some form), then all religions are cheap, especially when they are viewed as exoteric and/or pre-modern phenomena. Many or most Buddhists in Southeast Asia, I suggest, believe that the Buddha will answer prayers or provide protection, whether through amulets, pilgrimages, donations or whatever. Of course, there are religious people in all mainstream traditions who are looking for the meaning behind the reported events and the meaning behind the message of those reports. Of course, they could be on a wild goose chase, but one has to wonder how the major religions developed from such unpromising beginnings. If one does more than just wonder, one is led back to the exceptionally charismatic character of the founders, accompanied by extraordinary events that were seen by their witnesses as miraculous.

People with a "modern" mindset, or perhaps a "postmodern" one, want to minimize myth in their own belief systems. Myth is definitely so yesteryear, so pre-modern. So an historical person who uses simply the power of the human mind to attain understanding and personal liberation from ignorance and suffering, and by inference, a moral code that helps others toward the same objectives, is very attractive to the modern/postmodern mind. However, this kind of mind, as it moves from modern to postmodern, is reluctant to privilege any kind of religion or faith-system that is not based on verifiable data or is not falsifiable. Hence many Western Buddhists, who are not products of Buddhist culture and tradition, may not be Buddhists at all in the "religious" sense. They are attracted to the methodology of Buddhism - the practice - and perhaps to the atheism of Buddhist metaphysics, as it removes the distracting and unresolvable puzzles of God and the origin of being.

One doesn't need to focus on the founder to benefit from the methods and the philosophy; hence a semi-mythical founder or even a mythical one is adequate (even if marginal), as long as the teachings are well grounded and systematic. However, when all is said and done, I believe there was an historical person named Gautama and that he was a Sakyan and that he taught a relatively straightforward doctrine systematically over a long time, though how consistently and with what degree of development I don't know.

[eggomaniac]

He is represented as superhuman, attended by gods and other deities, able to see into the distant past, adept at transkinesis, clairvoyant, and so on. - and perhaps to the atheism of Buddhist metaphysics,* as it removes the distracting and unresolvable puzzles of God and the origin of being*.

I've asked this question before, who came up with the 'theory' that Buddhism is atheist? Did they use Buddhist text to reach this conclusion? As Buddha professed to have interactions with gods and at least 2 discussions with the Head God, how EGGsactly does that denote he was an atheist?

2 of His interactions with Head God were AFTER he attained Enlightenment, which would rule an explanation he was just dreaming of other worldly beings on His way to Awakening. Deducing Buddhism is atheistic is hanging onto illogical tommy rot. It is written he conversed with gods and God.

*[not so unresolvable - The whole and sole purpose of human existence is an 'attempt' by Thought to create a bastion against the enigma in your phrase, Xang, eradication by Time. Is jubilant and eternal immortality a possibilty, or not? ALL religious pinings, endeavors and questions, emanate from this one seed of Hope.]* "Hope is the only true ecstacy', blues singer; and "Vanity is all", Solomon are the descriptors for humanity.

It's not a problem that a celestial magic wand can be waved at, because the wand is the puzzle. This is not Man's quest, Man IS the quest.

Buddha, for sure, understood these 'philosophies', whether he was able to become the Crown of Creation, or not, has to be determined. Whether any and/or all can be 'God' is the root question. If not, why bother? Just enjoy being a bigger blip than the next guy. Join the Blipists.

{I, also, have to delve into what Buddha 'really' meant by extinguishing 'Self''. I 'think' most 'thinkers' took this concept a few steps farther than the finish line. Truth is not irrelevant, for example.}

The way in which the Buddha is represented in the Pali Canon is hardly as a mere human who has attained awakenness. He is represented as superhuman, attended by gods and other deities, able to see into the distant past, adept at transkinesis, clairvoyant, and so on. And we all know about his magical birth and infancy. Nevertheless, we accept that as mythos, though we may dismiss the mythos of other religions.

I would find it rather disconcerting to discover that the Buddha was not an historical figure, but would not be fazed at all if I learnt that he was just a charismatic teacher who had attained a level of enlightenment that attracted disciples and patrons and had a powerful impact on them. That's fairly much how I see Jesus (though he lost out on the patrons) and, though a different kind of leader, Muhammad (whose "patrons", the competing factions in Medina, actually handed the leadership over to him). The myth builds up as the disciples and their successors establish the religion and the myth may come to replace the reality, at least in the minds of simple, pre-modern people.

If a religion is "cheapened" by belief that in some way the founder or cult-object still plays a role in our lives (e.g. by visitations, answering prayers, or inspiration in some form), then all religions are cheap, especially when they are viewed as exoteric and/or pre-modern phenomena. Many or most Buddhists in Southeast Asia, I suggest, believe that the Buddha will answer prayers or provide protection, whether through amulets, pilgrimages, donations or whatever. Of course, there are religious people in all mainstream traditions who are looking for the meaning behind the reported events and the meaning behind the message of those reports. Of course, they could be on a wild goose chase, but one has to wonder how the major religions developed from such unpromising beginnings. If one does more than just wonder, one is led back to the exceptionally charismatic character of the founders, accompanied by extraordinary events that were seen by their witnesses as miraculous.

People with a "modern" mindset, or perhaps a "postmodern" one, want to minimize myth in their own belief systems. Myth is definitely so yesteryear, so pre-modern. So an historical person who uses simply the power of the human mind to attain understanding and personal liberation from ignorance and suffering, and by inference, a moral code that helps others toward the same objectives, is very attractive to the modern/postmodern mind. However, this kind of mind, as it moves from modern to postmodern, is reluctant to privilege any kind of religion or faith-system that is not based on verifiable data or is not falsifiable. Hence many Western Buddhists, who are not products of Buddhist culture and tradition, may not be Buddhists at all in the "religious" sense. They are attracted to the methodology of Buddhism - the practice - and perhaps to the atheism of Buddhist metaphysics, as it removes the distracting and unresolvable puzzles of God and the origin of being.

One doesn't need to focus on the founder to benefit from the methods and the philosophy; hence a semi-mythical founder or even a mythical one is adequate (even if marginal), as long as the teachings are well grounded and systematic. However, when all is said and done, I believe there was an historical person named Gautama and that he was a Sakyan and that he taught a relatively straightforward doctrine systematically over a long time, though how consistently and with what degree of development I don't know.

[Xangsamhua]

I've asked this question before, who came up with the 'theory' that Buddhism is atheist? Did they use Buddhist text to reach this conclusion? As Buddha professed to have interactions with gods and at least 2 discussions with the Head God, how EGGsactly does that denote he was an atheist? 2 of His interactions with Head God were AFTER he attained Enlightenment, which would rule an explanation he was just dreaming of other worldly beings on His way to Awakening. Deducing Buddhism is atheistic is hanging onto illogical tommy rot. It is written he conversed with gods and God.

It's the problem with words, isn't it, Eggo? By "theism" (a relatively recent word in the history of God-worshipping) I meant a belief in one God as the source of existence, the uncaused cause and primum mobile.

The Buddha would not be drawn into serious discussion of the ontological nature of Brahman (the creative principle in the universe) or the infinity or otherwise of the cosmos, but he did believe that causation was the fundamental principle of being and action and, hence, there could be no uncaused cause - ever.

However, the Buddha was a theist in another sense. He believed in a multiplicity of deities, who occupied a variety of celestial realms and intervened on occasion, but not systematically, in the lives of men and women. These "gods", however, had not been released from samsara and karma and would eventually be reborn in a higher or lower state. So the Buddha was a polytheist, but regarded the gods as less developed than the buddhas and boddhisatvas.

I see Wikipedia also posits that the Buddha may have been an "autotheist", i.e. one who believes that, "whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one's duty is to become perfect; divine. This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders such as Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, and Socrates." (Wikipedia: Theism) However, to argue for autotheism in the Buddha's case seems circular in that "divinity" to the Buddha equates to Buddhahood; hence "the duty" of the Buddha would be to become a Buddha - "perfect; divine" in the Buddha's terms.

[eggomaniac]

I've asked this question before, who came up with the 'theory' that Buddhism is atheist? Did they use Buddhist text to reach this conclusion? As Buddha professed to have interactions with gods and at least 2 discussions with the Head God, how EGGsactly does that denote he was an atheist? 2 of His interactions with Head God were AFTER he attained Enlightenment, which would rule an explanation he was just dreaming of other worldly beings on His way to Awakening. Deducing Buddhism is atheistic is hanging onto illogical tommy rot. It is written he conversed with gods and God.

It's the problem with words, isn't it, Eggo? By "theism" (a relatively recent word in the history of God-worshipping) I meant a belief in one God as the source of existence, the uncaused cause and primum mobile.

The Buddha would not be drawn into serious discussion of the ontological nature of Brahman (the creative principle in the universe) or the infinity or otherwise of the cosmos, but he did believe that causation was the fundamental principle of being and action and, hence, there could be no uncaused cause - ever.

However, the Buddha was a theist in another sense. He believed in a multiplicity of deities, who occupied a variety of celestial realms and intervened on occasion, but not systematically, in the lives of men and women. These "gods", however, had not been released from samsara and karma and would eventually be reborn in a higher or lower state. So the Buddha was a polytheist, but regarded the gods as less developed than the buddhas and boddhisatvas.

I see Wikipedia also posits that the Buddha may have been an "autotheist", i.e. one who believes that, "whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one's duty is to become perfect; divine. This can either be in a selfish, wilful, egotistical way or a selfless way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders such as Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, and Socrates." (Wikipedia: Theism) However, to argue for autotheism in the Buddha's case seems circular in that "divinity" to the Buddha equates to Buddhahood; hence "the duty" of the Buddha would be to become a Buddha - "perfect; divine" in the Buddha's terms.

<<<? I can 'sort of' make heads or tails sense of your Post, the latest one, that depicts Buddha as some sort of theist.

[[[well if words were not a big problem and always used for truth, all of the major religions would not have had to make tenets on this 'issue'.]]]

-----------------------------------------

"'and perhaps to the atheism of Buddhist metaphysics" .<<< I still don't understand why you, in your previous Post, as many others do, called Buddhism 'atheism'. It's not a matter of semantics, atheist don't believe there's a god, or any gods. Buddha clearly was not an atheist. [some people, not you, confuse letting go of self with letting go of truth].

[Xangsamhua]

Eggo, I can see why you object to the term a-theism in regard to the Buddha's metaphysics if you interpret "theism" as belief in gods at any level. However, in discussions on the origins of phenomena or the evolution of living beings, etc, I think the term generally refers to God as the supreme being, creator and sustainer of the universe, rather than demigods or the gods of e.g. the Hindu pantheon, with whom the Buddha was said to have conversed at times.

Nevertheless, if belief in non-supreme and non-immortal gods, including Brahma (who, in the Buddha's view, was deluded in thinking he'd created the universe) is theism, then the Buddha was not a-theist in that sense. Perhaps it is more accurate to say he was a-deist (did not believe in any uncaused cause as the source of creation), but I don't believe this term is ever used: the term "atheism" is used instead.

In another thread you referred to the Buddha's conversations with Brahma as evidence of his theism, and that's fine if "theism" is understood in the wider sense than I have used the term; however, it is worth noting that Brahma should not be confused with Brahman. Brahma was/is the Creator God in the Hindu pantheon, a member of the Trimurti, together with Vishnu and Shiva. As such, Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman, the supreme cosmic creative principle (genderless, unlike Brahma).

Brahma is a Hindu god, or manifestation of God; Brahman is pre-Hindu. Brahma is, if you like, the creative function of Brahman, whereas Vishnu is the preservative and Shiva the destructive one. All three are personalized and have female consorts; unlike Brahman, which transcends gender, change, etc and has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. usually applied to the Supreme Being in mainstream world religions. I don't believe the Buddha had conversations with this entity (Brahman), and when called upon by a follower to discuss matters of cosmic origin, duration, extent, etc, he refused to do so.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

Eggo, I can see why you object to the term a-theism in regard to the Buddha's metaphysics if you interpret "theism" as belief in gods at any level. However, in discussions on the origins of phenomena or the evolution of living beings, etc, I think the term generally refers to God as the supreme being, creator and sustainer of the universe, rather than demigods or the gods of e.g. the Hindu pantheon, with whom the Buddha was said to have conversed at times.

Nevertheless, if belief in non-supreme and non-immortal gods, including Brahma (who, in the Buddha's view, was deluded in thinking he'd created the universe) is theism, then the Buddha was not a-theist in that sense. Perhaps it is more accurate to say he was a-deist (did not believe in any uncaused cause as the source of creation), but I don't believe this term is ever used: the term "atheism" is used instead.

In another thread you referred to the Buddha's conversations with Brahma as evidence of his theism, and that's fine if "theism" is understood in the wider sense than I have used the term; however, it is worth noting that Brahma should not be confused with Brahman. Brahma was/is the Creator God in the Hindu pantheon, a member of the Trimurti, together with Vishnu and Shiva. As such, Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman, the supreme cosmic creative principle (genderless, unlike Brahma).

Brahma is a Hindu god, or manifestation of God; Brahman is pre-Hindu. Brahma is, if you like, the creative function of Brahman, whereas Vishnu is the preservative and Shiva the destructive one. All three are personalized and have female consorts; unlike Brahman, which transcends gender, change, etc and has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. usually applied to the Supreme Being in mainstream world religions. I don't believe the Buddha had conversations with this entity (Brahman), and when called upon by a follower to discuss matters of cosmic origin, duration, extent, etc, he refused to do so.

Would you summarize by saying that there are several realms of existence, some of which are Heaven or God realms, & that no matter how powerful or long living such Gods maybe compared to us, they remain conditioned & impermanent?

That there is something beyond all, which the Buddha would not describe other that to say it is permanent & unconditioned.

Edited July 3, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Would you summarize by saying that there are several realms of existence, some of which are Heaven or God realms, & that no matter how powerful or long living such Gods maybe compared to us, they remain conditioned & impermanent?

That there is something beyond all, which the Buddha would not describe other that to say it is permanent & unconditioned.

1. (Re. "several realms of existence") - This seems to be what the Buddha believed, or, while possibly not personally believing it, employed as a teaching device.

2. I don't believe that, in the phenomenal cosmos, the Buddha accepted anything as possibly uncaused, unconditioned and permanent. Nirvana/Nibbana was put forward by the Buddha as an unconditioned state, though not uncaused - a state of cessation, neither being nor not-being, but ultimate. If I'm right in what I have said so far, others can clarify and develop the idea of Nirvana/Nibbana further. I'm not capable just yet.

[eggomaniac]

I don't believe the Buddha had conversations with this entity (Brahman), and when called upon by a follower to discuss matters of cosmic origin, duration, extent, etc, he refused to do so.

Well this needs clarification. Perhaps I am misinformed?

I can't remember where, but on more than one occasion I read that Buddha was in consternation? when he reached enlightenment. Brahma, seeing this, came to ask what was the matter. Buddha said he did not know HOW he could teach this and Brahma said not to worry as some people will have less sand in their eyes. <<< Nice story, but if it's not true, my conclusions on the subject turn into strong theories.

The other one, Sabajai? [maybe Camerata] who said that when Buddha attained Enlightment that the head God Indra turned over management of the pantheon to him.

{Indra, according to Wiki is, also, Erawan, whether that is Brahma by a different name?]

================================

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.religion.buddhism/2008-06/msg00056.html

…within Buddhism, in the most famous of its scriptures, the

Dhammapada(47), the Buddha clearly espouses a belief in a supreme

Creator. Buddha, contrary to being an atheist or a person

who never answered or avoided answering the question of

God’s existence, as present day Buddhist sects and most Western

and Eastern scholars portray, also believed in One God:

This is heavy reading for me, but it seems to say it is being 'claimed' by many that Buddha never answered questions on this subject, but has quotes from Buddhist scriptures which disprove this.

Look, where my thinking is on all of this, I can live with it, either way. Either way, Buddha attained very high understanding. There are more important questions above this issue.

Clarifying this will only be helpful, though.

[Xangsamhua]

If one really wanted the Buddha to have believed in God I'm sure one could find some indication of it, in a text, in the Buddha's use of a term, or by inference.

Translations (Muller, PTS) of the Dhammapada have the Buddha speaking of "created beings"? Created by whom, or what? One can infer a personal creator or some kind of creative force and think of it as "God".

One can also take the Dharmakaya, or Dharmadhatu notion and think of it as the ground of being in the sense that the mystics and modern theologians like Paul Tillich have, or the Gnostic pleroma from which gods such as YWH ("Yahweh"/"Jehovah") are said to have emanated.

After all, the Buddha was not a Nihilist. He didn't teach that there is no existence. There must be a source or field/ground for phenomena, but the source is not fixed and permanent, nor uncaused, nor self-caused, neither giving rise to consciousness in a linear way nor caused by consciousness, but a constant kaleidoscope of interplay between interdependent cause-effect relationships. Indeed the source (cause) of the phenomena and the phenomena themselves are interdependent, as causes are impacted by their effects. (The same idea is found in more advanced Christian theology, but runs up against the early church belief that God cannot suffer.)

The reference in the Islamic website (Optagon) that you cite to "Brahmuna" is curious. I assume the writer is referring to Brahma, as I can't find any relevant entity called Brahmuna, and yes, according to the Canon, the Buddha did converse with Brahma, but he did not accept Brahma's self-belief that he was the creator of the universe. The author's paraphrase of the sutta text confuses Brahma with a supreme, transcendent and immortal God such as Allah.

I mention the Islamic provenance of the website not disrespectfully – Islamic scholars have every right to discuss Buddhism, and with credibility where the criteria for credibility are met; however, it may be that the author would be happier to enlist the Buddha on the side of the believers, in contrast to those who have embraced him as a fellow atheist; hence a mild caveat is in order.

I'm not sure where to place Robert Thurman's protestations about the Buddha "knowing God" (i.e. Brahma) and his reference to the Charvaka atheists opposed by the Buddha. Did the Buddha oppose them for their atheism or their materialism? If the Buddha accepted the reality of non-eternal, non-omniscient and non-immutable deities then he would have opposed the Charvakas' skepticism about these deities, but that does not bear on belief in a supreme God as opposed by atheists in the modern understanding of the terms. It sounds like Thurman was in debating mode and threw these lines in to refute someone's claim – an instance where "skilful teaching" becomes ethically questionable. Thurman is not the last word in Buddhism, but I doubt he really believes that the Buddha taught or believed that we are all children of an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable Father-God who is self-caused and brought existence into being out of nothing.

Suzuki's views are eccentric in this matter. Suzuki and his wife were Theosophists – members of the Tokyo Theosophical Lodge. Although the Theosophical Society does not use the term "God" in its declarations, it states that (1) "One Life pervades and sustains the universe" and (2) The universe is the manifestation of an eternal, boundless and immutable Reality beyond the range of human understanding. The second of these statements is hard to reconcile, in my view, with the Buddha's teachings about impermanence. (More about Theosophical beliefs can be found at http://www.theosophi.../about_theo.php)

Of course, Buddhists can talk about God in a poetic manner, or even metaphysically, in certain contexts. Thich Nhat Hanh does this. I'm reminded of a talk TNH gave a few years ago at the Quaker headquarters in London. I've forgotten the topic, but at the end a member of the audience asked him where God and Jesus fit in to what he had spoken about. TNH replied that "everything I have spoken about is about God and Jesus". The point is that we can speak about "ultimate concerns" (Tillich's term) in different ways and from different traditions, but the ultimate is still One. The ultimate, where it actually is ultimate, even if interdependently ultimate, does not depend on how we speak of it. Of course TNH is a poet and, perhaps, can be given some poetic licence. He often refers to the "Kingdom of God" in a poetic manner. (He reminds me of William Blake.)

It may not be all that important whether the Buddha believed in gods or even a supreme creative principle. I suspect most Buddhists around the world in fact do believe in God in some way or form. But in refusing to discuss the questions of ultimate concern put to him by Malunkya in the Cula-Malunkya-Sutta, the Buddha may not simply have been avoiding the issue on practical grounds, but acknowledging that these discussions can give legitimacy to what in fact may be absurd questions, e.g. Does "God" "exist"? (suggesting that it is understood a priori that there is a God that "exists" in some supraphenomenal and paraconceptual sort of way). This is important. If Buddhism simply doesn't buy into the legitimacy of these questions, if Buddhists take a theologically non-cognitivist position, that clears the air somewhat and obliges the questioners to consider their terms of reference. In doing so, much of the heat may be removed from the atheist vs theist disputes and more light might be introduced into the discourse.

[eggomaniac]

If one really wanted the Buddha to have believed in God I'm sure one could find some indication of it, in a text, in the Buddha's use of a term, or by inference.

Translations (Muller, PTS) of the Dhammapada have the Buddha speaking of "created beings"? Created by whom, or what? One can infer a personal creator or some kind of creative force and think of it as "God".

One can also take the Dharmakaya, or Dharmadhatu notion and think of it as the ground of being in the sense that the mystics and modern theologians like Paul Tillich have, or the Gnostic pleroma from which gods such as YWH ("Yahweh"/"Jehovah") are said to have emanated.

After all, the Buddha was not a Nihilist. He didn't teach that there is no existence. There must be a source or field/ground for phenomena, but the source is not fixed and permanent, nor uncaused, nor self-caused, neither giving rise to consciousness in a linear way nor caused by consciousness, but a constant kaleidoscope of interplay between interdependent cause-effect relationships. Indeed the source (cause) of the phenomena and the phenomena themselves are interdependent, as causes are impacted by their effects. (The same idea is found in more advanced Christian theology, but runs up against the early church belief that God cannot suffer.)

The reference in the Islamic website (Optagon) that you cite to "Brahmuna" is curious. I assume the writer is referring to Brahma, as I can't find any relevant entity called Brahmuna, and yes, according to the Canon, the Buddha did converse with Brahma, but he did not accept Brahma's self-belief that he was the creator of the universe. The author's paraphrase of the sutta text confuses Brahma with a supreme, transcendent and immortal God such as Allah.

I mention the Islamic provenance of the website not disrespectfully – Islamic scholars have every right to discuss Buddhism, and with credibility where the criteria for credibility are met; however, it may be that the author would be happier to enlist the Buddha on the side of the believers, in contrast to those who have embraced him as a fellow atheist; hence a mild caveat is in order.

I'm not sure where to place Robert Thurman's protestations about the Buddha "knowing God" (i.e. Brahma) and his reference to the Charvaka atheists opposed by the Buddha. Did the Buddha oppose them for their atheism or their materialism? If the Buddha accepted the reality of non-eternal, non-omniscient and non-immutable deities then he would have opposed the Charvakas' skepticism about these deities, but that does not bear on belief in a supreme God as opposed by atheists in the modern understanding of the terms. It sounds like Thurman was in debating mode and threw these lines in to refute someone's claim – an instance where "skilful teaching" becomes ethically questionable. Thurman is not the last word in Buddhism, but I doubt he really believes that the Buddha taught or believed that we are all children of an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable Father-God who is self-caused and brought existence into being out of nothing.

Suzuki's views are eccentric in this matter. Suzuki and his wife were Theosophists – members of the Tokyo Theosophical Lodge. Although the Theosophical Society does not use the term "God" in its declarations, it states that (1) "One Life pervades and sustains the universe" and (2) The universe is the manifestation of an eternal, boundless and immutable Reality beyond the range of human understanding. The second of these statements is hard to reconcile, in my view, with the Buddha's teachings about impermanence. (More about Theosophical beliefs can be found at http://www.theosophi.../about_theo.php)

Of course, Buddhists can talk about God in a poetic manner, or even metaphysically, in certain contexts. Thich Nhat Hanh does this. I'm reminded of a talk TNH gave a few years ago at the Quaker headquarters in London. I've forgotten the topic, but at the end a member of the audience asked him where God and Jesus fit in to what he had spoken about. TNH replied that "everything I have spoken about is about God and Jesus". The point is that we can speak about "ultimate concerns" (Tillich's term) in different ways and from different traditions, but the ultimate is still One. The ultimate, where it actually is ultimate, even if interdependently ultimate, does not depend on how we speak of it. Of course TNH is a poet and, perhaps, can be given some poetic licence. He often refers to the "Kingdom of God" in a poetic manner. (He reminds me of William Blake.)

It may not be all that important whether the Buddha believed in gods or even a supreme creative principle. I suspect most Buddhists around the world in fact do believe in God in some way or form. But in refusing to discuss the questions of ultimate concern put to him by Malunkya in the Cula-Malunkya-Sutta, the Buddha may not simply have been avoiding the issue on practical grounds, but acknowledging that these discussions can give legitimacy to what in fact may be absurd questions, e.g. Does "God" "exist"? (suggesting that it is understood a priori that there is a God that "exists" in some supraphenomenal and paraconceptual sort of way). This is important. If Buddhism simply doesn't buy into the legitimacy of these questions, if Buddhists take a theologically non-cognitivist position, that clears the air somewhat and obliges the questioners to consider their terms of reference. In doing so, much of the heat may be removed from the atheist vs theist disputes and more light might be introduced into the discourse.

This is just a teeny Thread in an obscure Forum on Buddhism. There's a mind boggling plethora of BLOGS and websites devoted to the question of whether Buddha was an atheist, or not.

As to the OP, it appears there are Buddhists who believe scriptures are Buddha's words and others who do not.

Some Buddhist believe in reincarnation, others do not.

It leaves one wondering, what in the sam heck is Buddhism? [it could take a few lives to decide]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does mankind have a purpose or not? That is THE most important question. If not, ALL religions are just blips, anyway. This is not something a fragile mind should contemplate. Let's put it this way, I would not discuss this possibility with a child. Under this realm of possibilty, any religion, is no bigger or smaller than any other outward sign of Existence, for example, dinosaurs, stars, wars, emotions, and so on, all to be extinguished by the eventual winner, Time. Are we just a billionth of a second in a trillion centuries?

If, however, mankind does have a purpose, it can, only logically, be a Divine purpose, a guided by Thought purpose. The most enjoyable relief is to believe there is a God who created Time. If this is true there is the chance to work towards Immortality. The other side of the coin is the aforementioned blippism. If there is no God that has an Eternal Heaven/Nirvana reserved for us, then why EGGsactly should one even bother? Just have fun and don't get caught.

If one really wanted the Buddha to have believed in God I'm sure one could find some indication of it, in a text, in the Buddha's use of a term, or by inference.

The third possibilty is that Thought is in an endless struggle with Time. If God did not create Time, then Mankind is an attempt to create Beings that can withstand the hurricane, Time.

Allegorically, Adam & Eve were a failed attempt. Eventually, free will HAD to have them eat from the tree of Knowledge. If Christ's blood on earth can squelch Time's stangle hold, so much the better.

If Buddha combined our Godly nature with Free Will and Truth in a way that Adam & Eve could not, hip hip, hurrah!

It would be a most enjoyable relief to believe that, however, maybe He is the new Atlas.

--------------------------------

A young couple were so glad to be part of the new club they joined. When the invitations for their first General Meeting arrived, they were very excited to attend. The veteran members were appreciative to have them attend. When they left the meeting, she was the new President and he the Director of Publicity. 5 years later a very enthusiastic young couple, new members caught their eye, gleamingly. They encouraged them to attend the General Meeting.

[sabaijai]

story, but if it's not true, my conclusions on the subject turn into strong theories.

The other one, Sabajai? [maybe Camerata] who said that when Buddha attained Enlightment that the head God Indra turned over management of the pantheon to him.

{Indra, according to Wiki is, also, Erawan, whether that is Brahma by a different name?]

That's a bit muddled. The story goes that Indra remained king of the Brahman pantheon, but turned over service of all the gods, to Buddha, specifically to protect and preserve dhamma. Indra remained the 'muscle,' so to speak.

Erawan - the Thai pronunciation of the Sanskrit Airavata - is not Indra but rather Indra's mount, the five-headed elephant (of which only three heads are visible in 2D representations, and hence many Thais today say the animal has three heads).

[eggomaniac]

story, but if it's not true, my conclusions on the subject turn into strong theories.

The other one, Sabajai? [maybe Camerata] who said that when Buddha attained Enlightment that the head God Indra turned over management of the pantheon to him.

{Indra, according to Wiki is, also, Erawan, whether that is Brahma by a different name?]

That's a bit muddled. The story goes that Indra remained king of the Brahman pantheon, but turned over service of all the gods, to Buddha, specifically to protect and preserve dhamma. Indra remained the 'muscle,' so to speak.

Erawan - the Thai pronunciation of the Sanskrit Airavata - is not Indra but rather Indra's mount, ***the five-headed elephant (of which only three heads are visible in 2D representations***, and hence many Thais today say the animal has three heads).

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have misread that the Erwan Shrine depicted Indra. So, Indra is the King of the gods, and he is not Brahma? Is Brahma even more encompassing than Indra?

=====================================================================================================

Still, this episode of Buddha's story, all by itself, without other 'episodes', refutes the notion that Buddhist was an atheist, according to the English language definitions, 'not believing in God, or any gods'. The ones that don't say Buddhism is atheistic, say it is theistic, but that God, or gods, have no passing interest in mankind. < That is not the picture I take from this story. Why would Indra even have talked ro Buddha, let alone give a man reins over gods? IF Brahma, also, spoke to Buddha, and expressed concern that some would have less sand in their eyes, that would be a depiction of a caring and loving god.

Even if these 'talks' with gods never happened, the fact they are part of Buddhist lore disproves Buddhism teaches atheism.

Detail of the Phra Prang, the central tower of the Wat Arun ("Temple of Dawn") in Bangkok, Thailand - showing Indra on his ***three-headed*** SEE ABOVE - sabajai elephant Erawan (Airavata

[rockyysdt]

Still, this episode of Buddha's story, all by itself, without other 'episodes', refutes the notion that Buddhist was an atheist, according to the English language definitions, 'not believing in God, or any gods'.

My thoughts on the notion that Buddhism is atheistic revolves around the position any Gods would hold.

As powerful as Gods may be, and holding positions in higher realms, l view them as limited in comparison to the state of Nibanna.

This model allows for Gods, but even their great powers may be well short of the state of unconditioned permanence.

My model relegates Gods to super beings rather than ultimate creators of all existence and time.

If one contends that the state of enlightenment is beyond even Gods then the atheistic position holds.

Are there scriptures which would blow my theory?

Edited July 7, 2010 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

story, but if it's not true, my conclusions on the subject turn into strong theories.

The other one, Sabajai? [maybe Camerata] who said that when Buddha attained Enlightment that the head God Indra turned over management of the pantheon to him.

{Indra, according to Wiki is, also, Erawan, whether that is Brahma by a different name?]

That's a bit muddled. The story goes that Indra remained king of the Brahman pantheon, but turned over service of all the gods, to Buddha, specifically to protect and preserve dhamma. Indra remained the 'muscle,' so to speak.

Erawan - the Thai pronunciation of the Sanskrit Airavata - is not Indra but rather Indra's mount, ***the five-headed elephant (of which only three heads are visible in 2D representations***, and hence many Thais today say the animal has three heads).

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have misread that the Erwan Shrine depicted Indra. So, Indra is the King of the gods, and he is not Brahma? Is Brahma even more encompassing than Indra?

=====================================================================================================

Still, this episode of Buddha's story, all by itself, without other 'episodes', refutes the notion that Buddhist was an atheist, according to the English language definitions, 'not believing in God, or any gods'. The ones that don't say Buddhism is atheistic, say it is theistic, but that God, or gods, have no passing interest in mankind. < That is not the picture I take from this story. Why would Indra even have talked ro Buddha, let alone give a man reins over gods? IF Brahma, also, spoke to Buddha, and expressed concern that some would have less sand in their eyes, that would be a depiction of a caring and loving god.

Even if these 'talks' with gods never happened, the fact they are part of Buddhist lore disproves Buddhism teaches atheism.

Detail of the Phra Prang, the central tower of the Wat Arun ("Temple of Dawn") in Bangkok, Thailand - showing Indra on his ***three-headed*** SEE ABOVE - sabajai elephant Erawan (Airavata

The Erawan Shrine was named for the hotel, not for any deity in the shrine itself. That deity is Brahma. Brahma is the creator deity. Indra is the king of the pantheon.

The answers to all of these questions as to what the Brahmanist deities represent are easily found on Hindu websites or even Wikipedia. You might want to pick up and read a book on basic Hinduism, as the primary pantheon is usually explained succinctly in such books.

Or Google 'Hindu deities,' There is lots on it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENTH286&q=hindu+deities&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

On the question of whether Buddha was an atheist or not, there are quite a few threads on this and as far as I'm concerned the issue isn't that easily 'settled.' But the point has been made that the Brahmanist/Hindu deities are not 'God,' or Theos, in the sense of an everlasting divine.

When we say 'Hindu gods' we are not talking about theos, we are taking about devas. 'Gods' is just one English translation but it doesn't mean 'God.'

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]

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

[eggomaniac]

Still, this episode of Buddha's story, all by itself, without other 'episodes', refutes the notion that Buddhist was an atheist, according to the English language definitions, 'not believing in God, or any gods'.

My thoughts on the notion that Buddhism is atheistic revolves around the position any Gods would hold.

As powerful as Gods may be, and holding positions in higher realms, l view them as limited in comparison to the state of Nibanna.

This model allows for Gods, but even their great powers may be well short of the state of unconditioned permanence.

My model relegates Gods to super beings rather than ultimate creators of all existence and time.

If one contends that the state of enlightenment is beyond even Gods then the atheistic position holds.

Are there scriptures which would blow my theory?

It's dictionaries that would blow your theory, unless Buddhists are 'allowed' to create their own definitions of words.

A true, blue atheist does not believe in gods, gods, relegated gods, 'super beings'. I would have to ask an atheist, but, would guess, they cannot believe in nibbana [btw is that Thai for nirvana?]

Buddha claims to have talked to gods, so he wasn't an atheist. If He wasn't an atheist why should any Buddhist fall over themselves claiming Buddhism is atheistic. It ain't. Though there are dozens of websites and BLOGS debating this issue.

[Notice I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your perception of nibbana, maybe it is Something above all gods, like you say. While Jews, Christians and Muslims call that 'place' heaven/paradise, that gods dwell, are you saying it is a similar place or state of being that Buddhists can attain, but gods can't?]

[eggomaniac]

The Erawan Shrine was named for the hotel, not for any deity in the shrine itself. That deity is Brahma. Brahma is the creator deity. Indra is the king of the pantheon.

The answers to all of these questions as what the Brahmanist deities represent are easily found on Hindu websites or even Wikipedia. You might want to pick up and read a book on basic Hinduism, as the primary pantheon is usually explained succinctly in such books.

Or Google 'Hindu deities,' There is lots on it:

http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

On the question of whether Buddha was an atheist or not, there are quite a few threads on this and as far as I'm concerned the issue isn't that easily 'settled.' But the point has been made that the Brahmanist/Hindu deities are not 'God,' or Theos, in the sense of an everlasting divine.

When we say 'Hindu gods' we are not talking about theos, we are taking about devas. 'Gods' is just one English translation but it doesn't mean 'God.'

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]

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

It appears, it is claimed, that Buddha talked to the creator god & the king of the pantheon. Buddha, along with Hindus believed these Entities existed, an atheist would not. To define these beings as 'only' devas, is it to get an atheist to 'jump up' and believe in them by stating they are not really immortal, not really gods. [There are, also, alienists, you know? They are complete atheists, however they recognise other worldly being have interacted with Earthlings, though.] I think 'some' atheist can tolerate an alien existence, but not a devan one.

Be a Buddhist if you want, be an atheist if you want, but it is impossible to be both.

A real atheist just does not believe in some of the teachings that are portrayed, but some seem to have Buddhist/English defintions.

[fabianfred]

Nibbana is the Pali version of Nirvana which is mainly used by Mahayana although both are interchangeable.

Buddhism is often called a non-theistic religion since it doesn't believe in God or gods in the same sense as other religions do...all powerful creator being(s) which are eternal.

The beings in the higher realms such as Brahma and Indra are called gods, but they are still stuck in the prison of Samsara just like us and subject to falling to other realms when they die from their preset existences. They can have creation abilities.

The god Indra created the Himaphan forest and Sala for Prince vessandantra and his family to live in during the Boddhisatvas final existence in the human realm, the story being the last of the Jataka tales and is celebrated as the 'Great Life'. The forest still exists as do the 16 Makhaliphon trees which bear fruit that is like 15 year old girls.

[rockyysdt]

It's dictionaries that would blow your theory, unless Buddhists are 'allowed' to create their own definitions of words.

A true, blue atheist does not believe in gods, gods, relegated gods, 'super beings'. I would have to ask an atheist, but, would guess, they cannot believe in nibbana [btw is that Thai for nirvana?]

Buddha claims to have talked to gods, so he wasn't an atheist. If He wasn't an atheist why should any Buddhist fall over themselves claiming Buddhism is atheistic. It ain't. Though there are dozens of websites and BLOGS debating this issue.

[Notice I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your perception of nibbana, maybe it is Something above all gods, like you say. While Jews, Christians and Muslims call that 'place' heaven/paradise, that gods dwell, are you saying it is a similar place or state of being that Buddhists can attain, but gods can't?]

You're very correct in what you say but l continue to view Buddhism as atheistic due to the ultimate Buddhist goal.

I think of Gods as limited beings residing in a God realm.

Our ultimate goal in Buddhism is to become enlightened.

Although the Buddha wouldn't be drawn into describing what enlightenment & Nibbana actually is, I believe this state is beyond Gods.

To me, although supremely powerful, Gods are very limited in their nature.

I sometimes think even l could be thought of as a God if l could take 21st century technology back to an earlier period in time. To me Gods are the same. They are beings with higher powers. The Judeo/Christian God is described in quite limited ways, with strong attachments to the senses. He has a very strong desire to be adored and can be very vengeful if his laws are broken. I recently asked a Christian what he would do in the garden of heaven for near eternity. He replied, "I would spend eternity adoring my master".

To me, powerful as they may be, even Gods are limited & as Fred indicated, are also stuck in samasara.

None of us can even begin to contemplate what Nibanna is, other than through self experience, but l suspect Gods pale in significance.

That's why I perceive Buddhism as atheistic.

[sabaijai]

The Erawan Shrine was named for the hotel, not for any deity in the shrine itself. That deity is Brahma. Brahma is the creator deity. Indra is the king of the pantheon.

The answers to all of these questions as what the Brahmanist deities represent are easily found on Hindu websites or even Wikipedia. You might want to pick up and read a book on basic Hinduism, as the primary pantheon is usually explained succinctly in such books.

Or Google 'Hindu deities,' There is lots on it:

http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

On the question of whether Buddha was an atheist or not, there are quite a few threads on this and as far as I'm concerned the issue isn't that easily 'settled.' But the point has been made that the Brahmanist/Hindu deities are not 'God,' or Theos, in the sense of an everlasting divine.

When we say 'Hindu gods' we are not talking about theos, we are taking about devas. 'Gods' is just one English translation but it doesn't mean 'God.'

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1][2] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and his relationship to the universe.[3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.[4]

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

It appears, it is claimed, that Buddha talked to the creator god & the king of the pantheon. Buddha, along with Hindus believed these Entities existed, an atheist would not. To define these beings as 'only' devas, is it to get an atheist to 'jump up' and believe in them by stating they are not really immortal, not really gods. [There are, also, alienists, you know? They are complete atheists, however they recognise other worldly being have interacted with Earthlings, though.] I think 'some' atheist can tolerate an alien existence, but not a devan one.

Be a Buddhist if you want, be an atheist if you want, but it is impossible to be both.

A real atheist just does not believe in some of the teachings that are portrayed, but some seem to have Buddhist/English defintions.

You're not getting it, eggo. No one is saying the point isn't debatable. But theism as *generally* understood means a belief in an everlasting supreme being. The deities in Brahmanism, in the Buddhist view, are just beings in the deva realms. They have their function but are subject to birth and death just like those in human, animal, plant and inanimate realms.

That's not the same as believing that a God or gods control our destinies, which is what theism is about.

I would hardly cite a dictionary as the ultimate authority on Buddha or Buddhism.

Feel free to disagree, but that won't make your view any more definitive than anyone else's.

[rockyysdt]

It's dictionaries that would blow your theory, unless Buddhists are 'allowed' to create their own definitions of words.

A true, blue atheist does not believe in gods, gods, relegated gods, 'super beings'. I would have to ask an atheist, but, would guess, they cannot believe in nibbana [btw is that Thai for nirvana?]

Buddha claims to have talked to gods, so he wasn't an atheist. If He wasn't an atheist why should any Buddhist fall over themselves claiming Buddhism is atheistic. It ain't. Though there are dozens of websites and BLOGS debating this issue.

[Notice I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your perception of nibbana, maybe it is Something above all gods, like you say. While Jews, Christians and Muslims call that 'place' heaven/paradise, that gods dwell, are you saying it is a similar place or state of being that Buddhists can attain, but gods can't?]

You're very correct in what you say but l continue to view Buddhism as atheistic due to the ultimate Buddhist goal.

I think of Gods as limited beings residing in a God realm.

Our ultimate goal in Buddhism is to become enlightened.

Although the Buddha wouldn't be drawn into describing what enlightenment & Nibbana actually is, I believe this state is beyond Gods.

To me, although supremely powerful, Gods are very limited in their nature.

I sometimes think even l could be thought of as a God if l could take 21st century technology back to an earlier period in time. To me Gods are the same. They are beings with higher powers. The Judeo/Christian God is described in quite limited ways, with strong attachments to the senses. He has a very strong desire to be adored and can be very vengeful if his laws are broken. I recently asked a Christian what he would do in the garden of heaven for near eternity. He replied, "I would spend eternity adoring my master".

To me, powerful as they may be, even Gods are limited & as Fred indicated, are also stuck in samasara.

None of us can even begin to contemplate what Nibanna is, other than through self experience, but l suspect Gods pale in significance.

That's why I perceive Buddhism as atheistic.

Nibbana is above Gods.

Edited July 8, 2010 by rockyysdt