Creation

[Neeranam]

Hi,

What's the Buddhist view on creation, if there is one?

Is it along the lines of Darwinism, natural selection and all that theoretical stuff, or more along the lines of there being a creator?

NN

[cdnvic]

Hi,

What's the Buddhist view on creation, if there is one?

Is it along the lines of Darwinism, natural selection and all that theoretical stuff, or more along the lines of there being a creator?

NN

There is no "creator" in buddhism. Individual buddhists may have their own theories, but there is no god in the same sense that judism, christianity, and islam have.

cv

[sabaijai]

Along with questions on reinacarnation, the Buddha apparently treated questions about cosmology as questions which "tend not to edification," i.e., they can't be satisfactorily answered.

The poison arrow parable is often cited in response to questions about God, afterlife and cosmology.

By his silence Shakyamuni wanted to divert our attention from fruitless questions to the all-important task before us: solving life's problems and living a life which would bring happiness to self as well as others.

To a follower who insisted on knowing, "Is there a God?", Shakyamuni replied with the parable of the poison arrow. "if you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise O disciple, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; when that is done, you may still ask the questions you put before me, if you so desire."

[Gohonzon]

Hi,

What's the Buddhist view on creation, if there is one?

Is it along the lines of Darwinism, natural selection and all that theoretical stuff, or more along the lines of there being a creator?

NN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Buddhism is a non mono-theistic religion. So, therefore, there was no creation as there is no creator. Buddhism puts the emphasis on the individual to address their own liberation and not rely on an external God or saviour ,as they simply don't exist in Buddhism. It's upon this basis that it is arguable whether Buddhism can be categorised as being a religion at all.

I'm not sure that Buddhism would dismiss evolutionary Darwinism per se. But natural selection? Hmm. Certainly any ideas of social Darwinism would be rejected in favour of karma.

The thing to remember is that we all have innnate Buddhahood. And that's the most important thing

[Nordlys]

The thing to remember is that we all have innnate Buddhahood. And that's the most important thing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me for a bit off-topic question. Ghonzon, is "innnate Buddhahood" what is called "Busshou" in Japanese (as SGI might teach you)? Been looking for this term in English for a long time.

[Gohonzon]

The thing to remember is that we all have innnate Buddhahood. And that's the most important thing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me for a bit off-topic question. Ghonzon, is "innnate Buddhahood" what is called "Busshou" in Japanese (as SGI might teach you)? Been looking for this term in English for a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry but I'm no scholar of Japanese. But I do know that the word for Buddha is butsu, and the word for the place of the Buddha is butsdan. Within the SGI internationally ,or within the Nichiren tradition generally I think, only basic Japanese words are used ; gongyo, daimoku,etc. The study of Japanese terms would be for only for those with a specific interest in that area for some reason or another.

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2005-08-02 10:47:32)

Hi,

What's the Buddhist view on creation, if there is one?

Is it along the lines of Darwinism, natural selection and all that theoretical stuff, or more along the lines of there being a creator?

NN

Buddhism is a non mono-theistic religion. So, therefore, there was no creation as there is no creator. Buddhism puts the emphasis on the individual to address their own liberation and not rely on an external God or saviour ,as they simply don't exist in Buddhism. It's upon this basis that it is arguable whether Buddhism can be categorised as being a religion at all.

I'm not sure that Buddhism would dismiss evolutionary Darwinism per se. But natural selection? Hmm. Certainly any ideas of social Darwinism would be rejected in favour of karma.

The thing to remember is that we all have innnate Buddhahood. And that's the most important thing

Thanks for that.

But how could there be no creator?

I guess what you are saying is, not to think about it.

NN

[camerata]

Here's what Ajahn Brahm says in a talk on Buddhism and Science:

...the Buddha emphatically said that the beginning and the end of the universe can only be found by investigating within. This gave the answer to one of the questions that people so often ask of Buddhists: "Who do Buddhists believe created this universe?" A scientist would reword the same question as, "What is the origin of this universe?" The answer is that the beginning and end of the universe are to be found within your own body and mind. You are its creator!

[sabaijai]

Bhikkhus, the round is beginningless.

Of the beings that travel and trudge through this round,

shut in as they are by ignorance and fettered by craving,

no first beginning is describable.

SN 15:1

[Gohonzon]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2005-08-02 10:47:32)

Hi,

What's the Buddhist view on creation, if there is one?

Is it along the lines of Darwinism, natural selection and all that theoretical stuff, or more along the lines of there being a creator?

NN

Buddhism is a non mono-theistic religion. So, therefore, there was no creation as there is no creator. Buddhism puts the emphasis on the individual to address their own liberation and not rely on an external God or saviour ,as they simply don't exist in Buddhism. It's upon this basis that it is arguable whether Buddhism can be categorised as being a religion at all.

I'm not sure that Buddhism would dismiss evolutionary Darwinism per se. But natural selection? Hmm. Certainly any ideas of social Darwinism would be rejected in favour of karma.

The thing to remember is that we all have innnate Buddhahood. And that's the most important thing

Thanks for that.

But how could there be no creator?

I guess what you are saying is, not to think about it.

NN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HI NN

Im not sure why it is that anyone has difficulty envisaging eternity. It would now be impossible for me personally to accept the true entity of being in any other way

I don't think that I'm saying not to think about it. Although, personally, I think it much more beneficial to try and grasp the--quite difficult--concept of Ichinen Sanzen (three thousand realms in one lifes moment.) There's plenty of info on the internet. I suppose to put it more simply, this present moment contains all there is--all of the past and all of the future.

But I think that as we progress in our practice then such concepts as eternity becomes more of a reality than just an intellectual idea.

Camerata's quote is well worth thinking about too.

[Dradam]

Most Buddhist beliefs have trickled down through the Hindu religion. Ideas of Heaven, ######, Creation, and the end of the world are similar.

Buddhist teachings of direct Hindhu origin would teach that the world is billions of years old and that humans or something similar have existed during that entire time. It is as equally implausible as the Christian 6,000 year old earth idea.

Buddhism is relatively weak in areas of the meaning of life and existence however. The belief in reincarnation and the eternal nature of the spirit is pointless without some form of creation. Where did the spirit come from? It can't always have been here as here (the earth) was not always here.

As the earth's population increases, does that mean the number of human reincarnations is increasing? Fewer spirits are being reborn as tigers and more are coming back as humans I guess. This is a good reason to cause the extinction of animals that we would not like to be in our next life.

I was once told by a Buddhist monk that if a Buddhist dies he is reincarnated and if a Christian dies, he goes to heaven. That would mean that if a Buddhist died, and was reincarnated as a Christian, he could then go to Heaven. If a Buddhist converted to Christianity, he could end the cycle much quicker than going through the thousands of rebirths necessary to achieve Nirvana. Hmmm.

Any ideas on these thoughts?

[thaibebop]

I might sound too much like a lay person here, but I always got the impression, at least from reading Zen, that how we got here was unimportant, for we can't cahnge it and only our actions today will deside tomorrow, so, why even think about it.

[sabaijai]

Most Buddhist beliefs have trickled down through the Hindu religion.  Ideas of Heaven, ######, Creation, and the end of the world are similar.

Buddhist teachings of direct Hindhu origin would teach that the world is billions of years old and that humans or something similar have existed during that entire time.  It is as equally implausible as the Christian 6,000 year old earth idea.

Buddhism is relatively weak in areas of the meaning of life and existence however.  The belief in reincarnation and the eternal nature of the spirit is pointless without some form of creation.  Where did the spirit come from?  It can't always have been here as here (the earth) was not always here.

As the earth's population increases, does that mean the number of human reincarnations is increasing?  Fewer spirits are being reborn as tigers and more are coming back as humans I guess.  This is a good reason to cause the extinction of animals that we would not like to be in our next life.

I was once told by a Buddhist monk that if a Buddhist dies he is reincarnated and if a Christian dies, he goes to heaven.  That would mean that if a Buddhist died, and was reincarnated as a Christian, he could then go to Heaven.  If a Buddhist converted to Christianity, he could end the cycle much quicker than going through the thousands of rebirths necessary to achieve Nirvana.  Hmmm.

Any ideas on these thoughts?

I don't think the cosmology you describe as "Buddhist" is supported by anything in the recorded discourses of the Buddha. Nowhere in the Tripitaka, as far as I know, does it state that reincarnation is a fact. Also, with reference to 'spirits' or souls, the Buddha specifically denied their existence, as summed up in expositions on anatta (no soul), one of the three primary characteristics of existence.

Further to the lack of explanation on creation/God goes, the poisoned arrow parable pretty much states that such concepts are irrelevant.

The only creation theory the Buddha though was relevant was the theory of interdependent origination, which explains how citta (mind-moments) - the essential unit of nuomenal existence - come into being, moment to moment.

It's true that in social Buddhism, i.e., the way it is practiced in Thailand, Tibet, Japan, etc, people talk a lot about reincarnation and spirits. These are folk beliefs that have been handed down over thousands of years, pre-dating Gautmama Buddha. But nothing in the Pali Tripitaka endorses these folk beliefs.

[thaibebop]

Most Buddhist beliefs have trickled down through the Hindu religion.  Ideas of Heaven, ######, Creation, and the end of the world are similar.

Buddhist teachings of direct Hindhu origin would teach that the world is billions of years old and that humans or something similar have existed during that entire time.  It is as equally implausible as the Christian 6,000 year old earth idea.

Buddhism is relatively weak in areas of the meaning of life and existence however.  The belief in reincarnation and the eternal nature of the spirit is pointless without some form of creation.  Where did the spirit come from?  It can't always have been here as here (the earth) was not always here.

As the earth's population increases, does that mean the number of human reincarnations is increasing?  Fewer spirits are being reborn as tigers and more are coming back as humans I guess.  This is a good reason to cause the extinction of animals that we would not like to be in our next life.

I was once told by a Buddhist monk that if a Buddhist dies he is reincarnated and if a Christian dies, he goes to heaven.  That would mean that if a Buddhist died, and was reincarnated as a Christian, he could then go to Heaven.  If a Buddhist converted to Christianity, he could end the cycle much quicker than going through the thousands of rebirths necessary to achieve Nirvana.  Hmmm.

Any ideas on these thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think the cosmology you describe as "Buddhist" is supported by anything in the recorded discourses of the Buddha. Nowhere in the Tripitaka, as far as I know, does it state that reincarnation is a fact. Also, with reference to 'spirits' or souls, the Buddha specifically denied their existence, as summed up in expositions on anatta (no soul), one of the three primary characteristics of existence.

Further to the lack of explanation on creation/God goes, the poisoned arrow parable pretty much states that such concepts are irrelevant.

The only creation theory the Buddha though was relevant was the theory of interdependent origination, which explains how citta (mind-moments) - the essential unit of nuomenal existence - come into being, moment to moment.

It's true that in social Buddhism, i.e., the way it is practiced in Thailand, Tibet, Japan, etc, people talk a lot about reincarnation and spirits. These are folk beliefs that have been handed down over thousands of years, pre-dating Gautmama Buddha. But nothing in the Pali Tripitaka endorses these folk beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are the folk beliefs so strong? Why aren't people able to push such folk beiefs aside, when Buddhism doesn't support it? Do they just not know, if so, why not?

[camerata]

Buddhism is relatively weak in areas of the meaning of life and existence however.  The belief in reincarnation and the eternal nature of the spirit is pointless without some form of creation.  Where did the spirit come from?  It can't always have been here as here (the earth) was not always here.

The goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of suffering, preferably in this life. So speculating about Creation is just a distraction.

[sabaijai]

Most Buddhist beliefs have trickled down through the Hindu religion.  Ideas of Heaven, ######, Creation, and the end of the world are similar.

Buddhist teachings of direct Hindhu origin would teach that the world is billions of years old and that humans or something similar have existed during that entire time.  It is as equally implausible as the Christian 6,000 year old earth idea.

Buddhism is relatively weak in areas of the meaning of life and existence however.  The belief in reincarnation and the eternal nature of the spirit is pointless without some form of creation.  Where did the spirit come from?  It can't always have been here as here (the earth) was not always here.

As the earth's population increases, does that mean the number of human reincarnations is increasing?  Fewer spirits are being reborn as tigers and more are coming back as humans I guess.  This is a good reason to cause the extinction of animals that we would not like to be in our next life.

I was once told by a Buddhist monk that if a Buddhist dies he is reincarnated and if a Christian dies, he goes to heaven.  That would mean that if a Buddhist died, and was reincarnated as a Christian, he could then go to Heaven.  If a Buddhist converted to Christianity, he could end the cycle much quicker than going through the thousands of rebirths necessary to achieve Nirvana.  Hmmm.

Any ideas on these thoughts?

I don't think the cosmology you describe as "Buddhist" is supported by anything in the recorded discourses of the Buddha. Nowhere in the Tripitaka, as far as I know, does it state that reincarnation is a fact. Also, with reference to 'spirits' or souls, the Buddha specifically denied their existence, as summed up in expositions on anatta (no soul), one of the three primary characteristics of existence.

Further to the lack of explanation on creation/God goes, the poisoned arrow parable pretty much states that such concepts are irrelevant.

The only creation theory the Buddha though was relevant was the theory of interdependent origination, which explains how citta (mind-moments) - the essential unit of nuomenal existence - come into being, moment to moment.

It's true that in social Buddhism, i.e., the way it is practiced in Thailand, Tibet, Japan, etc, people talk a lot about reincarnation and spirits. These are folk beliefs that have been handed down over thousands of years, pre-dating Gautmama Buddha. But nothing in the Pali Tripitaka endorses these folk beliefs.

Why are the folk beliefs so strong? Why aren't people able to push such folk beiefs aside, when Buddhism doesn't support it? Do they just not know, if so, why not?

One explanation I've read, from scholars of comparative religion, is that people create and nurture the concepts of God, soul, spirits, reincarnation, eternal life, etc in response to an intensification of our natural instincts towards self-protection and self- preservation.

The philosophy that the Buddha proposed was in a sense a rebellion, a heresy even, against these long-standing beliefs.

In Thailand, as Dradam inferred, there's the added influence of Brahmanism, which arrived in Thailand before Buddhism, and of course animism, even older. I would guess that these traditions remain alive for the same reasons these concepts arose in the first place.

We also need to remember that the Buddha didn't deny reincarnation, he just refused to comment on it. As Camerata wrote, it's not relevant to practice.

[meadish_sweetball]

Old roots reach deep, and trying to cut them off is not that easy.

It has been noted a few times how convenient it is that the holidays of Christianity all seem to coincide rather closely with those of the predating European Pagan traditions (solstices and other natural occurences)... people do not like to give up their traditions, but they are ok with gradually changing them, and adopting new ones.

There seems to exist a more or less subtle push from officialdom in Thailand to abandon old traditions seen as clashing with Buddhism - for example the phallus (lingam) worshipping sites you could see along the roads in the past, which in many cases have been replaced with Buddhist shrines rather recently. So the shift from animism/brahmanism is an ongoing one - but the traditions coexist, and have done so for a long time.