Can A Buddhist Believe In 'God'?

[udonguy]

I was chatting to a friends wife yesterday (Thai) who claimed she was a 'Buddhist' but when pushed she also stated she believed in 'God' - her farang husband (who also claims to be 'Buddhist') agreed with her.

I pointed out the invalidity and conflicting nature of these comments - to no avail.

It always amazes me how little most Thais actually know about Buddhism.

Does anyone here find it compatible to believe in 'God' and claim to be a Buddhist? (I am not referring to the 'Universe' being described as 'God' but a more personal God who controls everything and can be prayed too etc.)

[Fookhaht]

Interesting how the collective human conscience knows there's a God out there, despite conflicting philosophies of men. At least 70% of my Thai Buddhist friends pray to a god they do not know, but they know He's there.

[Brucenkhamen]

From what is recorded in the Pali Canon the Buddha never denied the existence of god, he never confirmed it either, he didn't find the concept relevant or helpful to what he was teaching.

Man creates God in his own image, and uses that concept as a form of attachment and security, doing this is incompatible with Buddhist practice I think.

However being open minded about the possibility of there being a God is not a problem, it's the blind belief and attachment to unproven concepts that tends to follow that is.

[rockyysdt]

I was chatting to a friends wife yesterday (Thai) who claimed she was a 'Buddhist' but when pushed she also stated she believed in 'God' - her farang husband (who also claims to be 'Buddhist') agreed with her.

I pointed out the invalidity and conflicting nature of these comments - to no avail.

It always amazes me how little most Thais actually know about Buddhism.

Does anyone here find it compatible to believe in 'God' and claim to be a Buddhist? (I am not referring to the 'Universe' being described as 'God' but a more personal God who controls everything and can be prayed too etc.)

Buddhism teaches of realms of existence.

Some Buddhists relate to these realms as being moment to moment mind states, where as others believe them to be actual states into which one can be re born due to the fruits of their kharma.

Some think the Deva or God realm is populated by godlike beings who enjoy great power, wealth and long life. They live in splendor and happiness. Yet even the Deva grow old and die. Further, their privilege and exalted status blind them to the suffering of others, so in spite of their long lives they have neither wisdom nor compassion. The privileged Deva will be reborn in another of the Six Realms.

Whilst others believe it to be a moment to moment condition of pleasure, when one's desires are fulfilled and one experiences short-lived but intense feelings of joy. Unlike the true happiness of Buddhahood, however, this state is temporary and, like Humanity, easily disrupted by even a slight change of circumstances. One will inevitably descend to a lower realm once the joy dies away. This realm is characterized by not feeling negative emotions and being less vulnerable to external influences than the lower realms.

I met a Buddhist woman who holds quite a sense of superiority in her interactions with others.

She was told by a fortune teller that she was a Deva in her former life.

This is probably why that in her eyes she finds it a chore to deal with those of lower station who are anchored to delusion greed and aversion.

If you are a Buddhist who believes in re Birth into many future lives due to the forces of kharmic fruit, with no chance of escape without enlightenment then those finding themselves re born in the Deva realm are possibly quite capable of Godly powers and very long lives (perhaps a million years, giving the illusion of immortality).

So your friend might be on the money regarding her belief in God, depending on which camp she relates to.

There are many who believe in the ego boosting belief of re birth into countless future lives even though the Buddha spoke of impermanence and that there is nothing inside to be re born, and if something was re born it wouldn't be you because you are conditioned and impermanent (memory, process, & conditioning), and that mind cannot be without body.

Edited December 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

So your friend might be on the money regarding her belief in God, depending on which camp she relates to.

The Buddhist devas are more like angels or spirits, nothing to do with the omnipotent creator God concept http://en.wikipedia....Deva_(Buddhism)

Edited December 24, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[rockyysdt]

So your friend might be on the money regarding her belief in God, depending on which camp she relates to.

The Buddhist devas are more like angels or spirits, nothing to do with the omnipotent creator God concept http://en.wikipedia....Deva_(Buddhism)

Thanks Bruce.

I read this interpretation prior to posting.

In order to grasp the concept of Devas and realms one needs to go back to the environment the Buddha found himself in.

He was surrounded by Brahmanism, in a world where every facet of ones life was set out at birth.

A world where your station in life was set out by the caste you were born into.

It was said that it was better to carry out the role associated with your birth caste badly, than to perform a role outside your caste well.

Those who failed to confirm either dropped out and escaped to the forest or lived with the threat of death.

Any attempt to marry outside your caste and your fate was sealed.

The Buddha knew that all this rite/ritual/custom was delusion but cleverly packaged his message of awakening in such a way that those who were deluded could accept the teaching depending on their interpretation.

Naturally, practicing the eightfold path can only reveal the truth and lead to liberation and awakening.

Lecturers who are going back to the early works of the Buddha are revealing subtle but profound discrepancies which are exposing Buddagosa's 5th century misinterpretations of what the Buddha was actually teaching.

One such thing is realms.

If you believe in re birth into multiple future lives and that these lives might be in different realms one interpretation might fit into the WIKI take on it.

However, if you subscribe that the Buddha was packaging his message to appease the Brahmans, but he actually meant that re birth was moment to moment, realms were mind states, and awakening was living free of greed, aversion and delusion, then Angels & Spirits are only in the mind.

If, however you subscribe to re birth in future lives (ego state), then the Buddha wasn't re inventing the reality of the time (Brahmanism).

Realms were already invented and included Deva realms as:

Nature Devas are responsible for elements or objects such as fire, air, rain and trees - most of them assumed a minor role in the later religion. Certain other deities rose into prominence. These higher Devas control much more intricate tasks governing the functioning of the cosmos and the evolution of creation. Mahadevas, such as Lord Ganesha, have such tremendous tasks under their diligence that they are sometimes called themselves Gods under the Supreme One God. The Trimurti is composed of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva. (Note: Mahadeva generally refers to Śiva)

There are also many other lesser celestial beings in Hinduism such as the Gandharvas (celestial musicians), or their wives, the Apsaras (celestial dancers).

Vayu, the Lord of the wind, is an example of an important Deva. Also, Death is personified as the Dev Yama.

Devs, in Hinduism, are celestial beings that control forces of nature such as fire, air, wind, etc. They are not to be confused with the One and the only Supreme one God or His personal form, Saguna Brahman which can be visualized as Viṣṇu or Śiva. God (see Ishvara) or Brahman (the Supreme Spirit) is the ultimate controller. A famous verse from the Katha Upanishad states: “From fear (here, power) of Him the wind blows; from fear of Him the sun rises; from fear of Him Agni and Indra and Death, the fifth, run." In actuality,Ishvara Brahman is the only Ultimate Reality, and all Devs are simply mundane manifestations of Him.^{[citation needed]}

Within this interpretation, omnipotence is more than possible.

The Buddha didn't confirm or deny Devas, but cleverly placed their realm below awakening, meaning that if you lived a worthy life and found yourself reborn in the house of Brahman, with all its splendour, you were still not awakended (that's of course if you believe in re birth into multiple future lives ).

Edited December 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

I was chatting to a friends wife yesterday (Thai) who claimed she was a 'Buddhist' but when pushed she also stated she believed in 'God' - her farang husband (who also claims to be 'Buddhist') agreed with her.

I pointed out the invalidity and conflicting nature of these comments - to no avail.

It always amazes me how little most Thais actually know about Buddhism.

Does anyone here find it compatible to believe in 'God' and claim to be a Buddhist? (I am not referring to the 'Universe' being described as 'God' but a more personal God who controls everything and can be prayed too etc.)

I think many Thai have a very pragmatic attitude towards believe, religion: it can never harm to have a few more gods, you never know what they can do for you. Better not take any risk by saying you don't believe in God. In the west religious believers have a more fundamentalist attitude: our believe is the only right one and other believes are not right.

[jaapfries]

From what is recorded in the Pali Canon the Buddha never denied the existence of god, he never confirmed it either, he didn't find the concept relevant or helpful to what he was teaching.

Man creates God in his own image, and uses that concept as a form of attachment and security, doing this is incompatible with Buddhist practice I think.

However being open minded about the possibility of there being a God is not a problem, it's the blind belief and attachment to unproven concepts that tends to follow that is.

Dear 'Brucenkhamen',

I read your comments 3 times, because I am not really all that used to "highly intelligent" comments on some ofthese forums, which is why I rarely participate in them.

However; I could not have phrased it better myself: your understanding of the subject-matter is axiomatic !

Thank you for your input.

Cheers,

JGK

[sabaijai]

elief in God ... is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance.

http://www.accesstoi...ka/godidea.html

[TongueThaied]

The better question is: Can a person that believes in 'God' be a Buddhist?

Of course the answer depends on how you define "Buddhist," which, after all, is only a label. If you happen to define "Buddhist" as meaning "one who follows the teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama," I still can't answer the question, but I can say that I have never met any such person in Thailand. But then I don't think I ever met anybody in the U.S. who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, which were not, in principle, much different from the basic teachings of either Siddhārtha or Mohammed.

As Dutch Guest says, Thais have a very pragmaitic view of religion. I have found this to be generally true of Asians. It's Pascal's Wager.

[Brucenkhamen]

The better question is: Can a person that believes in 'God' be a Buddhist?

Of course the answer depends on how you define "Buddhist," which, after all, is only a label.

I don't think there is a black and white answer to that either. I do think someone who believes in God can practise the Buddha's path to awakening, I've met many who do just that. I do though I think sooner or later if they practise correctly their assumptions and attachments regarding God will change, just as those of athiests do.

I don't think believing in God is a barrier, but blindly believing that your particular brand of theism has all the answers of course is, it's a barrier to a lot of things.

[Xangsamhua]

The Buddha was right not to engage in speculative discussion about "God". It is a pointless distraction, as no one can define "God" in any meaningful and agreed sense. A Being that cannot be defined by the normal criteria for existence does not exist. Indeed, theists often make a point about God being "beyond" the criteria for existence. He doesn't exist, they say; he just is, the "ground of being" (and that ground of being, of course, is beyond definition).

People assume there must be something pre- or para-existent that kicked existence off because we can't imagine something not having a first cause, and because we ask "Why is there something and not nothing?" We believe the necessary alternative to "something" is "nothing", but when we consider the "something" to be the totality of existence, there cannot be "nothing". Existence just is; it is the fundamental and irreducible basis of being. There is nothing more and nothing less than existence - no possible higher being and no possible nothingness. Buddhist philosophy, as it developed in the centuries following the Buddha's passing, takes that on board.

Any doctrine or speculation about the para-phenomenal world, deities, etc. or about rebirth and what is reborn must be framed within a scientific worldview and method, open to verification and confirmation, but also falsification, revision and change. This is a more realistic and more modest way of thinking about things.

People don't "believe" in God or gods for pragmatic reasons. Pragmatism is about practice and means to an end (Pascal's wager; James's "cash value" truth-criterion); one cannot be led to belief out of hope or fear, only to strategy.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[IMA_FARANG]

Well, unfortuneately you were incorrect.

Buddha was a human being...not any kind of God or supernatural being.

The Buddha was a person, who taught that all human beings suffered and taught the method of removing that suffering.

He made no claim to be a god (note the small letter, please) or be any supernatural being.

Now that is not necessarily true of all his later followers...as I am well aware.

However, I personally have met a ordained Buddhist monk who is also an active member of a Christian church.

To be fair, he is not an ordained THAI Buddhist monk....but he is ordained in another Buddhist tradition.

I don't want to get into a long debate about whether a Buddhist can also believe in God or not...but i just want to say....there are some people, perfectly rational and devout people, who believe it is not only possible to do both...but they themselves practice that belief.

Many Buddhists would simply say that the exitance of God (capitalized) was unproven and simply not truely relevant to thier core Buddhist principles anyhow.

But I will admit that this point is often debated among Buddhists and in Buddhist chat forums.

[dutchguest]

Buddhism is not a believe in the western sense. Buddha did not say: you must believe what I say without any proof (and you will go to heaven). He showed a path towards ending suffering, towards liberation. It is up to you to try if his words are true or not by following his advises. It must become your own experience. Then you do not believe, you know.

Buddha also said: if you meet me on the path kill me, which means don't make it a believe system with the Buddha as a kind of God. Unfortunately this is just what has happened in Thailand as well as in other Buddhist countries. It has become more a cultural, social believe system, then a individual experience, practice. (I think, especially in the west, there is now a tendency towards perceiving Buddhism as an individual path out of suffering and delusion).

A common feature of believe systems is that there is a believe in a higher power or God. I think, in spite of Thailand being a Buddhist country, generally speaking at the moment Thais are stronger believers then westerners. May be also because western science demands proofs and the western mind has become more scientific then the eastern. This might be an explanation why Thais can more easily believe in any God or higher power and it is not so strange for them to switch between the one or the other as they all belong to the supernatural world.

[Xangsamhua]

However, I personally have met a ordained Buddhist monk who is also an active member of a Christian church.

To be fair, he is not an ordained THAI Buddhist monk....but he is ordained in another Buddhist tradition.

Are you referring to James Ishmael Ford, IMA? http://en.wikipedia....es_Ishmael_Ford

[rockyysdt]

The better question is: Can a person that believes in 'God' be a Buddhist?

Of course the answer depends on how you define "Buddhist," which, after all, is only a label.

I don't think there is a black and white answer to that either. I do think someone who believes in God can practise the Buddha's path to awakening, I've met many who do just that. I do though I think sooner or later if they practise correctly their assumptions and attachments regarding God will change, just as those of athiests do.

I don't think believing in God is a barrier, but blindly believing that your particular brand of theism has all the answers of course is, it's a barrier to a lot of things.

When it comes to any discussion about God, you'll find the word "belief" a constant companion.

To me the Buddhas path, rather than being belief, is a path of practice requiring considerable effort.

The Buddha describes this effort as "Right Effort".

One of the three afflictions we all face is Aversion.

We are averse to effort.

What stops us all from attaining great heights in our Buddhist practice?

"Lack of effort".

This makes anything which panders to our greed very attractive.

Simply believing (in God) instantly offers eternal life in a garden of Paradise.

To obtain such a gift we simply believe (aversion to effort) and accept immortality (greed).

One could say we are also deluded.

I think you can obtain a level of reduced suffering by practicing the eightfold path, whilst still believing in God.

However eventually this will inhibit you from being fully awakened, unless practice with right effort will naturally lead you to an awareness from which God will no longer be relevant.

Deeply clinging to God will only fuel your greed and aversion.

As for referring oneself as being a Buddhist.

The Buddha himself never referred to such a label.

What is a Buddhist, one who believes, or one who practices?

Edited December 25, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Simply believing (in God) instantly offers eternal life in a garden of Paradise.

To obtain such a gift we simply believe (aversion to effort) and accept immortality (greed).

One could say we are also deluded.

Very thoughtful post, Rocky.

I like the linking between faith and the hope of immortality to aversion and greed, as long as the faith and hope is seen as a way of escaping one's own responsibility to avoid the three poisons of greed/attachment, anger/aversion and delusion/ignorance.

The idea of "casting one's burden upon Jesus" and abnegating one's responsibility to the God of the scriptures does seem rather a cop-out. However, I suspect most people who believe in justification by faith alone see it as more than just a judicious assent. Rather, I think they would see faith as something one incorporates into one's being and which, guided by scripture, guides them to morally right principles and behaviour. I'm not defending faith; just trying to be fair to people of faith.

If one genuinely believes in God, and believes thereby that the believer and God are in partnership to bring about a better world ("co-creators"), I don't see this as a form of aversion and attachment. Delusion, maybe, but who am I to say? Wishing for liberation/salvation for oneself and one's fellows is not a bad thing, even if one is motivated by a possibly deluded belief.

[rockyysdt]

Simply believing (in God) instantly offers eternal life in a garden of Paradise.

To obtain such a gift we simply believe (aversion to effort) and accept immortality (greed).

One could say we are also deluded.

Very thoughtful post, Rocky.

I like the linking between faith and the hope of immortality to aversion and greed, as long as the faith and hope is seen as a way of escaping one's own responsibility to avoid the three poisons of greed/attachment, anger/aversion and delusion/ignorance.

The idea of "casting one's burden upon Jesus" and abnegating one's responsibility to the God of the scriptures does seem rather a cop-out. However, I suspect most people who believe in justification by faith alone see it as more than just a judicious assent. Rather, I think they would see faith as something one incorporates into one's being and which, guided by scripture, guides them to morally right principles and behaviour. I'm not defending faith; just trying to be fair to people of faith.

In practice my observation reveals a lack of "morally right principles and behaviour".

This can range from a lack of awareness of the plight and suffering of others all the way up to zealot application of doctrine.

Perhaps this is due to the effects of delusion.

If one genuinely believes in God, and believes thereby that the believer and God are in partnership to bring about a better world ("co-creators"), I don't see this as a form of aversion and attachment. Delusion, maybe, but who am I to say? Wishing for liberation/salvation for oneself and one's fellows is not a bad thing, even if one is motivated by a possibly deluded belief.

The aversion and greed come from the rewards on offer and lack of effort required to achieve them.

I've quizzed Christians on whether they would continue to embrace their belief if everything they've been taught is true, except that their reward is that God loves them, but that the difference would be that upon meeting God after death for a short period, their life would then end.

I was shocked to hear that all indicated they would no longer be Christians.

That's what led me to the link between greed/aversion and faith.

Interestingly, many Buddhists (some formerly Christian) have a great attachment to the idea of multiple lives, and ascension into Nibbanna the place.

By treating Buddhism as a religion the same attachment to greed (immortality/multiple lives ) and aversion (fear of eternal death) is involved.

Simply believe in Buddhism (according to Buddhadasa) and you will have eternal immortality ad infinitum, albeit, with stints of suffering, depending on your karma.

But then, isn't life with suffering better than non existence?

Edited December 26, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

I've quizzed Christians on whether they would continue to embrace their belief if everything they've been taught is true, except that their reward is that God loves them, but that the difference would be that upon meeting God after death for a short period, their life would then end.

I was shocked to hear that all indicated they would no longer be Christians.

That's what led me to the link between greed/aversion and faith.

Interesting quiz. There wouldn't be much point, would there, going to church, giving money, praying, etc, if there weren't some payoff at the end. Maybe some would say they do it for the health, education and welfare services some of the churches provide, but why would they go along with all the other baggage, too?

But then, isn't life with suffering better than non existence?

Not sure about this. I think I might rather be unconscious for however long death lasts than suffer in a Nazi concentration camp.

[rockyysdt]

But then, isn't life with suffering better than non existence?

Not sure about this. I think I might rather be unconscious for however long death lasts than suffer in a Nazi concentration camp.

I suppose I'm an armchair critic when it comes to suffering.

There must be levels of suffering where peace (death) is preferable, but I've also read the the will to exist is extremely powerful.

Although during countless lifetimes through re birth, there would be many stints involving severe experience, given the choice, I'd prefer this knowing many re births may involve pedestrian suffering, rather than non existence.

For example, I still choose this life, knowing I will suffer many times during its course.

To have countless re births for aeons is very consoling and makes belief as a Theravadan, as interpreted by Buddhagosa, very appealing (greed).

Edited December 26, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Polsci]

I was chatting to a friends wife yesterday (Thai) who claimed she was a 'Buddhist' but when pushed she also stated she believed in 'God' - her farang husband (who also claims to be 'Buddhist') agreed with her.

I pointed out the invalidity and conflicting nature of these comments - to no avail.

It always amazes me how little most Thais actually know about Buddhism.

Does anyone here find it compatible to believe in 'God' and claim to be a Buddhist? (I am not referring to the 'Universe' being described as 'God' but a more personal God who controls everything and can be prayed too etc.)

Perhaps I might be able to answer your questions about Thais' belief in God. Growing up in a typical Thai home that participated in Buddhist functions and attended Buddhist ceremonies, I was, like the rest of Thai Buddhists, clueless about Buddha's teaching (Pali is all Greek to me) but very fluent in the combined Buddhism and animism. What Thais usually revere is idolized Buddha. Superstitions, check. Black magic, check. Mystical powers, check. Brahmin rituals, check. Misinterpretations of Buddha's teaching, check. Worshiping of ghosts, spirits, trees, animals, writings on the wall (for winning lottery numbers), etc., check! These days you'll see more and more Hindu God Ganesh right next to Buddha statues at home altars.

To me, Buddhism is Hinduism without Gods and all attachment. Back in his days, Buddha must have pissed off A LOT of people believing in Gods and following Vedas and Ayurveda so they could live long and prosper. But the reality is Buddhism in Thailand represents a long social and religious tradition that has seamlessly weaved together Hinduism, animism and Taoism.

There are a lot of good books on this subject out there, including some that were once doctoral dissertations.

[marstons]

From the Christain point of few some body who worships Buddha cannot worship God, both the old and new testament make it clear there is only one God that can be worshipped.

so for me from a Christain point of view no they cant.

and yes most Thais i know, know very little about the basic morality of being Buddahist as set below Śīla refers to overall principles of ethical behavior. There are several levels of sila, which correspond to "basic morality" (five precepts), "basic morality with asceticism"

1. To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms), or ahimsā
   
2. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft)
   
3. To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct
   
4. To refrain from lying (speaking truth always)
   
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol)
   

[rockyysdt]

From the Christian point of few somebody who worships Buddha cannot worship God, both the old and new testament make it clear there is only one God that can be worshiped.

so for me from a Christain point of view no they cant.

Being a Buddhist and worshiping the Buddha are not synonymous.

Buddha means "Awakened One", or "one who arose from the slumbers of ignorance".

Buddha doesn't mean or is equal to God.

One can feel an adoring regard for someone without having religious reverence.

[bankei]

Don't forget the Thais are not just Buddhist, but more animist with a sprinkling of Buddhism of top. The belief in phii and gods is very widespread in well ingrained into the religion. Look at all the Brahmanical works out there being worshiped - such as the Brahman at that hotel in Bangkok (forget the name now). Recall a few years ago someone smashed the statue up with a hammer and he was breaten to death by the gentle worshipers on the spot.

Also notice the increase in Kuanyin worship lately. Kuanyin is a Chinese type Mahayana Bodhisattva of compassion (Avelokitisevara in Sanskrit).

I have also noticed many Thai Buddhists who actually pray to the Buddha, "phra Phutajao" asking for favours such as a Christian praying to a male diety living in outerspace. In fact little different to the Christian in this regard.

There is also the idoltry aspect. Thais are largely Idolerers (sp??). They pray to the statue itself and belive the statue has the power - and this is where they may differ from the praying Christians too.

Bankei

[camerata]

Look at all the Brahmanical works out there being worshiped - such as the Brahman at that hotel in Bangkok (forget the name now). Recall a few years ago someone smashed the statue up with a hammer and he was breaten to death by the gentle worshipers on the spot.

That was the Erawan Shrine and the guy was beaten up by municipal garbage collectors rather than worshipers.

Anyway, the OP asked about a "personal God who controls everything" rather than deities in general. I read recently that many Thais believe that some spirit/deity takes up residence in a Buddha statue when it is consecrated, and they ask favours of that rather than the Buddha himself. But I wonder if belief in a supernatural being with limited powers is really incompatible with Buddhism. It goes back to the old question of whether Buddhism is atheistic or not.

[Jawnie]

Rockyysdt got it just about right. One of the six realms of existence is the god realm where beings live up to 1,000,000 years. Because of previous good karma they are born into this realm and dwell in the highest states of mental bliss. All their desires are instantly fulfilled and they live in celestial palaces and gardens. Therefore they do not practice the Dharma. Eventually, their karma is exhausted and they move on to lower realms.

It is said the suffering they experience upon realizing they will soon die and go to a lower realm is immense. Through their transcendent vision, they foresee their impending downfall one week before it occurs. They experience other indications such as their clothes become dirty and soiled, their meditation cushions become uncomfortable, and their attendants flee them when they witness these changes. The gods are left alone and abandoned to their coming fate.

The existence of these gods falls into one of two categories of reality, or truths, the Two Truths: relative truth and ultimate truth. Relative truth says that these six realms exist and all the beings and experiences that occur within them are real. Ultimate truth rejects any real or abiding existence of these realms or the 'dream-like beings' that inhabit them. The Ultimate truth is the truth of the non-abiding nature of all things.

So, to answer the question: can a Buddhist believe in God? They can, but in the context of Rockyysdt's and others' comments. That is, there is no external god looking out for one or to whom one prays for protect and assistance.

I'm doubtful that many Thai Buddhist have this understanding even though it is dharma.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

Rockyysdt got it just about right. One of the six realms of existence is the god realm where beings live up to 1,000,000 years. Because of previous good karma they are born into this realm and dwell in the highest states of mental bliss. All their desires are instantly fulfilled and they live in celestial palaces and gardens. Therefore they do not practice the Dharma. Eventually, their karma is exhausted and they move on to lower realms.

It is said the suffering they experience upon realizing they will soon die and go to a lower realm is immense. Through their transcendent vision, they foresee their impending downfall one week before it occurs. They experience other indications such as their clothes become dirty and soiled, their meditation cushions become uncomfortable, and their attendants flee them when they witness these changes. The gods are left alone and abandoned to their coming fate.

The existence of these gods falls into one of two categories of reality, or truths, the Two Truths: relative truth and ultimate truth. Relative truth says that these six realms exist and all the beings and experiences that occur within them are real. Ultimate truth rejects any real or abiding existence of these realms or the 'dream-like beings' that inhabit them. The Ultimate truth is the truth of the non-abiding nature of all things.

So, to answer the question: can a Buddhist believe in God? They can, but in the context of Rockyysdt's and others' comments. That is, there is no external god looking out for one or to whom one prays for protect and assistance.

I'm doubtful that many Thai Buddhist have this understanding even though it is dharma.

However I did preface my comments as:

Some Buddhists relate to these realms as being moment to moment mind states, where as others believe them to be actual states into which one can be re born due to the fruits of their kharma.

Some think the Deva or God realm is populated by godlike beings who enjoy great power, wealth and long life. They live in splendor and happiness. Yet even the Deva grow old and die. Further, their privilege and exalted status blind them to the suffering of others, so in spite of their long lives they have neither wisdom nor compassion. It is said that the privileged Deva will be reborn in another of the Six Realms.

Whilst others believe it to be a moment to moment condition of pleasure.

If you're one of the Buddhists who believes in the latter, then God reams only exist in the mind.

If this is the truth then Buddhist who also believe in God have a major attachment.

Interestingly I've been listening to many online Dhamma talks.

Many of the speakers use Christian stories and anecdotes to illustrate Buddhist philosophy.

Quite understandable for one who has been raised a Christian but has discovered Buddhism in adulthood.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rockyysdt

[udonguy]

so we agree? there is no God? rebirth and all of the comments show that, actually, we all agree - no God. Not in the personal 'saviour' sense and therefore how can one be 'Buddhist' and have a faith in a 'God'? because that would mean 'God' could save us merely by believing whereas Buddhism teaches us to 'help ourselves' and not rely on 'outside' help in the form of redemption etc.

[rockyysdt]

so we agree? there is no God? rebirth and all of the comments show that, actually, we all agree - no God. Not in the personal 'saviour' sense and therefore how can one be 'Buddhist' and have a faith in a 'God'? because that would mean 'God' could save us merely by believing whereas Buddhism teaches us to 'help ourselves' and not rely on 'outside' help in the form of redemption etc.

The Buddha did teach to have an open mind and to experience for oneself.

He also said that we live with mind/body and as such it's much better top focus on this.

The other dimensions will take care of themselves.

So for me, God, or no God is not important.

Choosing one or the other is attachment.

Edited January 2, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

I hear a lot of people saying that all religions are basically the same (if we are just wise enough to see it). Specifically, Buddhism and Christianity. There is one guy I do respect who said it, and that's the Dalai Lama. I kinda regret he said that, but he has his reasons being on the world stage. However, for the average person, such a statement is not true at all, and it especially harms Buddhism to equate it with a revealed religion with an elaborated belief system. If you don't believe that the Son of God was sent to earth to die for your sins, you are not a Christian, and this has nothing to do with the real world that Buddha explained, and we try to understand.

Yet, in the cloak of their own supposed wisdom, it seems many people end up believing such a thing which leads nowhere.

IMHO. I say, have the personal integrity to follow the Buddhist teaching if it makes sense to you, and quit thinking that worshiping Jesus as well makes you a higher being, it just makes you confused.