Can A Buddhist Believe In 'God'?

[rockyysdt]

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.

In terms of what the Dalai Lama teaches, in the non human realms, if there are any, anything may be possible.

We don't know.

The key thing is, did Jesus Christ subscribe to what was written about him?

There is a Sutta, I'm not sure what it's called, where the Buddha explicitly says not to get involved with the unknowable.

Such realms are the subject of "belief" which leads to attachment and rigidity.

Edited January 3, 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.

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.

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

[rockyysdt]

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

To me prayer is like chanting.

Prayer and/or chanting can have a positive affect on our mindset.

Naturally no growth will occur if your friend doesn't perform daily concentration and mindfulness practice.

Initially praying for forgiveness will yield a level of lightness and liberation, but eventually this will be overtaken by the fruits of practice and the insights gained from this.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[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.

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

In summary, until awakened we all have beliefs.

Beliefs are rigidity and attachment.

All of us will live with these until we attain a certain amount of insight.

The beauty of practice is that we can cultivate an observer (that which is mindful/aware) which will observe our attachment/conditioning towards God, Jesus or any other belief.

This observer will gain strength and speed and lead to actual experience, insight and eventually awakening.

What that will be cannot be preempted.

Professing belief or disbelief is just the other side of the same coin.

Choosing either will have the same affect.

Edited January 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[udonguy]

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

To me prayer is like chanting.

Prayer and/or chanting can have a positive affect on our mindset.

Naturally no growth will occur if your friend doesn't perform daily concentration and mindfulness practice.

Initially praying for forgiveness will yield a level of lightness and liberation, but eventually this will be overtaken by the fruits of practice and the insights gained from this.

yes I appreciate the reply - and see your point re chanting but 'praying' is normally to 'someone' for 'something' not for the purposes you outline. So what then? praying to 'whom'? and for 'what'? surely the whole Buddhist doctrine is in 'self-reliance' and 'self-accountability'?

[huli]

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.

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

In summary, until awakened we all have beliefs.

Beliefs are rigidity and attachment.

All of us will live with these until we attain a certain amount of insight.

The beauty of practice is that we can cultivate an observer (that which is mindful/aware) which will observe our attachment/conditioning towards God, Jesus or any other belief.

This observer will gain strength and speed and lead to actual experience, insight and eventually awakening.

What that will be cannot be preempted.

Professing belief or disbelief is just the other side of the same coin.

Choosing either will have the same affect.

I think that some of these statements about belief can not be justified. One can be aware if he has beliefs, and know that beliefs are harmful, without being fully awakened. This does not necessarily mean professing disbelief. It means to admit that you don't know.

[rockyysdt]

I think that some of these statements about belief can not be justified.

Which ones?

One can be aware if he has beliefs, and know that beliefs are harmful, without being fully awakened. This does not necessarily mean professing disbelief. It means to admit that you don't know.

This is true.

It depends on which beliefs as each of us have many, some reasonable and others not so.

We all have different levels of awareness and delusion.

Some people I've witnessed refer to many of their beliefs as the truth, even though they maybe impossible to prove.

[Fookhaht]

... 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.

Just as there are natural laws in the universe, could there possibly be universal spiritual laws (gasp) that inhabit the conscience of human beings? Would that explain some of the uncanny similarities?

I am constantly comparing (Christian) notes with my Buddhist and Muslim good friends, and we're all quite taken aback at the, sometimes, nearly word-for-word precepts common to most major organized religions.

[Xangsamhua]

... 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.

Just as there are natural laws in the universe, could there possibly be universal spiritual laws (gasp) that inhabit the conscience of human beings? Would that explain some of the uncanny similarities?

I am constantly comparing (Christian) notes with my Buddhist and Muslim good friends, and we're all quite taken aback at the, sometimes, nearly word-for-word precepts common to most major organized religions.

The concept of Natural Law as the source of conscience is well known in the West, especially among Christians, through its articulation by Aquinas, following the Greeks. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether there is any such thing. We can only observe how people behave. Natural law is deductive; generalizing from observation is inductive.

There are commonalities in ethics across the religions, but deep differences in metaphysics. Buddhism does not propose a supreme being as creator and sustainer of the universe. Islam and Christianity do.

Islam's God is pure will, unknowable and unconstrained by reason or law - these are products of God's creative will and power.

Christianity sees God as, in part, knowable through the Logos, incarnated as Jesus the Christ. The Logos is the expression of God's reason, and God rules through reason, a voluntary self-restraining decision on God's part. For these reasons, Christianity has always encouraged philosophy as a path to theology.

Islam, however, since the 10th century, has discouraged philosophy and yoked theology to the study of law (fiqh = jurisprudence).

[Brucenkhamen]

I am constantly comparing (Christian) notes with my Buddhist and Muslim good friends, and we're all quite taken aback at the, sometimes, nearly word-for-word precepts common to most major organized religions.

If you compare the laws of various countries you'll find the same thing, uncanny.

They all agree on things like morality because for the most part it's pretty obvious, and also while ideas didn't travel nearly as quickly as they do now ancient peoples could carry them across continents.

It's stuff like the purpose of life and what really matters that they differ on.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Brucenkhamen

[huli]

I think that some of these statements about belief can not be justified.

Which ones?

One can be aware if he has beliefs, and know that beliefs are harmful, without being fully awakened. This does not necessarily mean professing disbelief. It means to admit that you don't know.

This is true.

It depends on which beliefs as each of us have many, some reasonable and others not so.

We all have different levels of awareness and delusion.

Some people I've witnessed refer to many of their beliefs as the truth, even though they maybe impossible to prove.

I guess the only one that prompted me to reply was the suggestion that beliefs are either held or rejected, but it turns out you agree with that, so...I take it back.

According to some Buddhist teachers and I think Buddhadassa was one of them, the core belief that is present until we are enlightened is that we are somebody, and, yea, I think it would be hard to give that up by just thinking about it. It's basically gonna be hard for most people to even call that a belief in the normal sense.

I really like your use of the concept "witness/observer", and I kinda wish meditation was taught using that term more often as it seems to me to really capture what is being done in an understandable way. In my imperfect humble opinion.

Edited January 6, 2012 by huli

[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.)

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.

Great post thanks. Thailand does seem a mix of Buddhism/Hinduism and Animism but, from what I have learnt (which is probably very little) Buddhists don't have a 'God', Hindus have many 'Gods' (but to be fair they are representations of one God' and Animists are just superstitious and Pagan (believing in power of nature but no God as such).

But, as this is a Buddhist thread, it's not Buddhist to mix in a Ganesh here and a Pig's head there.

[udonguy]

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.

My point is, partly, that how can anyone (God/Spirit) or whatever circumvent Karma? so it's no use praying to an indwelling spirit or a God? Believing in God also follows that one believes in Divine Intervention? how can that be?