Buddhist View

[suegha]

Hello all. This post has been prompted in me by another post, I realised that I didn't know if, or what the Buddhist view is on 'creation'.

My Christian view is that it's what the Bible says, that God created the heavens and the earth and all things therein.

So my query: Is there a 'standard' Buddhist view or doctrine on creation?

[thaibebop]

Buddhist don't concern themselves with creation. Buddhism was at one point just another branch of Hindu. So, at it's begining I am sure it held the same views that Hindus did and I assume still do. However, once it left India it changed. Theories of creation from the on out came from the cultures that adopted Buddhism, yet I believe they stayed some what separate in most cases. Like in Japan Shinto has a creation myth, but is has nothing to do with Buddhism, even if the person practices both.

Buddhism is more a of philosophy that got adopted by regional religions through out Asia. So, whatever myth you do find is more linked with the culture rather than with Biddhism.

[Guest endure]

Buddhists aren't particularly interested in the details of creation as it's not really relevant to what they're trying to achieve.

[chownah]

The Buddha taught that thinking about how the world was created does not help people to obtain the goal which he was teaching (like the lasts two posts saidJ) and that it could actually hinder the attainment of that goal. "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

). This link leads to a Buddhist scripture that talks about this:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta...a/an04-077.html

and the specific quote relevant to creation:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

There are other scriptures that deal with this topic. Their wording is different from this in that they tend to emphasize that conjecture on creation is not helpful or may be unhelpul in attaining the goal.

[sabaijai]

Suegha, here's what the Buddha said about creation, as recorded in the Pali canon at least:

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

Most schools of Buddhism don't believe there is a creator per se, although it is generally accepted that there are beings in other realms who lead god-like lives. Their lives, like all those caught in samsara (the cycle of existence), are impermanent rather than eternal.

Every living being dwells in one of thirty-one distinct "planes", of which our familiar human plane is but one. Some of these realms are home to beings (the devas) with unusual powers and extraordinarily subtle and refined physical bodies -- or even no body at all. Their god-like status is, however, short-lived; like all living beings, they are mortal and ultimately subject to death and rebirth in other planes according to the purity and skillfulness of their actions (kamma). One of these devas, the Great Brahma, is so clouded by his own delusion that he believes himself to be the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe

-- summary from Digha Nikaya v11, from Access to Insight

The late Nyanaponika Thera composed a well-written essay entitled Buddhism & the God-idea that summarises the Theravada Buddhist perspective on the question of personal gods/creation. A couple of excerpts:

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc.

Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance.

Among the fetters (samyojana) that bind to existence, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and desire for fine-material existence or for a "heaven of the sense sphere," as the case may be.

Excellent citation, chownah, pretty useful to address questions about measuring attainment in Buddhist practice as well as the origins of the world. Reading your post and then the sutta, it dawned on me that even using the word 'creation' to talk about world origins already presupposes a 'creator'.

[robitusson]

Big question. My understanding is creation is very much to do with karma and how action and effect bring things into being. Tibetan teachings always refer to "beginingless time" in terms of how long things have been going on. Creation is best viewed as a process rather than something which is done and then finished. We are in a constant state of creating causes for something to come about and creating causes for things to end or change into something else.

[chownah]

Good point, robitusson. My own view on "creation" is much like what you describe. We don't actually see the world clearly but we "create" a world through our ignorance and delusion. It is better to try to understand how we create this false world and how we can eliminate it than to try to understand how the world was actually created because we rarely ever (or never) experience the real world so how could we hope to understand much about its origins....if there is such a thing as the "origin" of everything.

Edited February 28, 2006 by chownah

[Suthep_Steve]

An aeon (kalpa): The Buddhist text speak of three kinds of aeons- an interim aeon, an incalculable aeon, and a great aeon.

An interim aeon (antarakalpa) is a period of time required for the life-span of human beings to rise from ten years to the maximum of many thousands of years, and then fall back to ten years. Twenty such interim aeons equal one incalculable aeon (asankheyyakalpa), and four incalculable aeons constitute one great aeon (mahakalpa).

The length of a great aeon is said by the Buddha to be longer than the time it would take for a man to wear away a mountain of solid granite one yojana (about 7 miles) high and wide by stroking it once every hundred years with a silk cloth (S.15:5/ii,181-82). hill

from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi, chapter 5"

From a Vajrayana point of view during a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists and is destroyed. Then it all starts again. The scriptures talk of a fire at the end of the aeon after which not even a single atom is left.

Come madness and vexation I embrace you.

[sleepyjohn]

Hello all. This post has been prompted in me by another post, I realised that I didn't know if, or what the Buddhist view is on 'creation'.

My Christian view is that it's what the Bible says, that God created the heavens and the earth and all things therein.

So my query: Is there a 'standard' Buddhist view or doctrine on creation?

Suegha...that was an excellent quote earlier:

"Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."

Forget about the rebirth thing....and certainly don't think about it in any simple way.

The main thing is that all the conjecture you are attempting may underneath be just a clinging to existence.....eternalism. The thrust of the Buddhas teaching is that this itself is the root of unhappiness.

Think about this...how would you like your "god" if he/she/it didn't promise eternal life, but simply a probably unpleasant death as an end? If you don't like that idea much then you might question your belief as a form of clinging to permanent existence. If you like it then good luck.

[sabaijai]

A passage from the Aganna Sutta sounds a bit like big bang theory:

Now there comes a time, Vasettha, when after a long period of time this world expands. When the world expands beings for the most part fall from the realm of Radiance and come here; and they exist made of mind, feeding on joy, self-luminous, moving through the air, constantly beautiful; thus they remain for a long, long time. Now at that time, all had become one world of water dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savors was spread out in the waters. Even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear. ~ Aganna Sutta

from The Origin of the World

The essay associated with this passage notes that the famous poisoned arrow parable came in response to a challenge to the Buddha in the form of a question as to the origins of the universe.

One of Buddhism's most unique aspects is that nothing in the philsophy contradicts the discoveries of modern science, thus such controversies as Creationism don't become issues.

Buddhists have no problem believing that the universe is billions of years old, or that there were such things as dinosaurs and evolution.

dhamma & science

[suegha]

I really appreciate all your comments, excellent. Thank you all for taking time to explain the Buddhist view.

Of course, if there are any others...

[phibunmike]

I really appreciate all your comments, excellent. Thank you all for taking time to explain the Buddhist view.

Of course, if there are any others...

You mean other Buddhist views or other creation views ?

My belief is that a few billion years after big bang, man created god in his own image...

What is the Hindu view ?

[ThaiPauly]

I DO NOT subscibe to the theory that God created the earth.

That is not to say I do not beleive there is a GOD.

Personally I agree that it is of no importance anyway.

What attracted me to Bhuddism is the beleif in KARMA, but I must say my attraction to Bhuddism is waning now, not just for the reason I descibe below , but for other reasons that many of you who have read my post on "Treatment of a Monk" will know.

I went to a funeral a few weeks ago. It was my freind Mother who died whilst here on holiday. My friend had a local Pastor , who bought along an organist to perform the Christian rights, and sing hymms,as well as 4 Monks to perform the Bhuddist ceremony., who turned up 1 hour before they were due. the difference was that the Monks had to be paid and then tucked into a hearyty meal.The Pastor would take no money.

Then as the poor girl was going into the oven someone (Bhuddist) took the lid off and gave it to my freind.. what on earth was he going to do with that ?were his thoughts.

He now has a problem with the faith.. and I can't say I blame him. The guy at the "incinerator" looked like a "hangman" from olde worlde England.. and wanted extra money to ensure the cremation went ahead immidiatley instead of waiting till he had his lunch.

So my freind is left with the lid of his Mother's coffin wondering what on earth to do with it.

This is not right.

How do you explain this?

[chownah]

"Buddhism was at one point just another branch of Hindu. "

I really think you are mistaken about this...can you explain?

[sleepyjohn]

"Buddhism was at one point just another branch of Hindu. "

I really think you are mistaken about this...can you explain?

I think it's fair to say that Buddhism has roots in the Vedic religions, but am not any great expert.

It IS true to say that most of what the Buddha teaches can be found elsewhere in other religions before and after and also in the work of philosophers.

Gautama Buddha seemed to have a particular knack for teaching however, and wove things together in a comprehensive way.

[thaibebop]

"Buddhism was at one point just another branch of Hindu. "

I really think you are mistaken about this...can you explain?

Okay, I'll try to keep it short. Most of this is coming from my textbooks and my professor.

Most of what Buddhism is can be drawn from Hinduism. Hinduism has a major theme of Brahman, which means "essence of all things" so, sort like the Tao. They also refer to this as an oversoul or Atman. Of course, life is maya or an illusion. Also, the idea of the Wheel of Existence and karma are formed with in Hindu beliefs.

The major manifestations of Hinduism are Brahma the creator, Vishnu the protector and Shiva the destroyer. What is important about this is that these God's not only have wives and children, but different manifestations of themselves. One of the more famous is Vishnu's manifestation Krishna.

Hindu's created a caste system which put priests at the top. Buddha was born Hindu with the priest caste. All these gurus that get mention in the history of Buddha are Hindu's trying to develop means of meditation that helps them achieve dharma. Each God was a path to the oversoul, even their manifestations. Buddha was a Hindu who developed a new form of dharma. Many years after his death Hindus began to view Buddha as a manifestation of Vishnu, just like Krishna.

Thai Buddhism, or Theravada, developed in India and was eventually pushed out by the expansion of the Muslims, this was before the Hindu's return to power much later. Under the Cholas Empire(800-1150 C.E.) Theravada was exported into South East Asia through trade. The King Rajendra (1016-1044 C.E.) was the one who had set up the most trade with the cultures in S.E.A. So, it wasn't until the Islamic rulers pushed Buddhism out of India, and that Buddhist teachings where taken north into China, that Buddhism really became dissociated with Hinduism.

It may be that Hindus still think that Buddhism is a Hindu manifestation. I met an Indian student in my classes last semester who was a Hindu and told me just that.

[robitusson]

Most of what Buddhism is can be drawn from Hinduism.

Don't agree with that at all I'm afraid. Buddhism was a reaction against Hinduism. It was a heresy against Hinduism and against the caste system.

It may be that Hindus still think that Buddhism is a Hindu manifestation.

Buddha is viewed as the ninth avatar of Vishnu according to some Hindus as far as I know.

[ColPyat]

Don't agree with that at all I'm afraid. Buddhism was a reaction against Hinduism. It was a heresy against Hinduism and against the caste system.

That is not entirely correct.

"Hinduism" is not a unified religion, it is a conglomerate of vastly differing religions and philosophies. The term "Hindu" was coined, i believe, by Persians to describe the believes of the population across the river Indus.

Many schools in what we call Hinduism do not support the cast sythem as well, there are agnostic schools of thought as well. Within the wide realm of Hinduism are also pre-vedic believe systhems incorporated, such as many shakti cults (very integral in tantrism), which originate in the prehistorical great mother cults.

Buddhism was not a reaction against "Hinduism" - it was more of a reformist philosophy of which there are many. The historical Buddha lived at the time of the beginnings of monastic orders within the many religions what make up what we call nowadays "Hinduism". He was most possibly the one who has first founded a rather strict monastic order in an area that previously had mostly independent ascetics.

Very soon after the different ascetics of Shivaism and Vaishnaism have founded their own monastic orders, the different saddhu orders, also as a reaction to the increasinly popular philosophy of the Buddha.

Buddhism may have evolved into a different religion altogether, or not. The debate, if Buddhism is a separate religion or not is endless. But i personally believe that this is a completely fruitless debate as both "religions" (or philosophies, which is also constantly debated) are not all-exclusive, and not necessarly dogmatic (meaning that development of dogma is absolutely permissable).

The overlaying, combining thoughts of all schools within "Hinduism", and "Buddhism" is the natural law of the wheel of Karma and Dharma, and the Moksa/Nirvana. Other than that there are manyfold ways and believe sythems.

Even "Buddhism" has evolved into many schools, some are very close to what we call "Hinduism" in theory and practice. Vajrayana for example has incorporated through Padmasambava many ideas of Bengali Tantrism.

I would even argue that the thought of exclusivity in the debate of the different schools is not only fruitless but also completely against the spirit and the aims of practitioneers of "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" (to stick with the popular terms).

What attracted me to Bhuddism is the beleif in KARMA, but I must say my attraction to Bhuddism is waning now, not just for the reason I descibe below , but for other reasons that many of you who have read my post on "Treatment of a Monk" will know.

I don't think that philosophies should be judged by the failings of individual practitioneers. Those, i would say, are separate issues. Does it touch the philospophy, or your believe in a philosophy, and its practice, when imposters misunderstand and abuse it for their own aims?

[sabaijai]

I DO NOT subscibe to the theory that God created the earth.

That is not to say I do not beleive there is a GOD.

Personally I agree that it is of no importance anyway.

What attracted me to Bhuddism is the beleif in KARMA, but I must say my attraction to Bhuddism is waning now, not just for the reason I descibe below , but for other reasons that many of you who have read my post on "Treatment of a Monk" will know.

I went to a funeral a few weeks ago. It was my freind Mother who died whilst here on holiday. My friend had a local Pastor , who bought along an organist to perform the Christian rights, and sing hymms,as well as 4 Monks to perform the Bhuddist ceremony., who turned up 1 hour before they were due. the difference was that the Monks had to be paid and then tucked into a hearyty meal.The Pastor would take no money.

Then as the poor girl was going into the oven someone (Bhuddist) took the lid off and gave it to my freind.. what on earth was he going to do with that ?were his thoughts.

He now has a problem with the faith.. and I can't say I blame him. The guy at the "incinerator" looked like a "hangman" from olde worlde England.. and wanted extra money to ensure the cremation went ahead immidiatley instead of waiting till he had his lunch.

So my freind is left with the lid of his Mother's coffin wondering what on earth to do with it.

This is not right.

How do you explain this?

I shouldn't think your faith in Buddhism would be determined by the observance of one Buddhist funeral, ThaiPauly. Nonetheless, a couple of points:

1) The pastor is probably on salary, while the monks are paid according to the ceremonies they provide. The pastor can take his salary and buy a meal any time of day. The monks can't buy meals for themselves and must eat before noon. Two different customs for achieving the same thing, from two different cultures.

2) The cremator has a job with regular hours, and if you want him to work during his lunch hour, it seems reasonable that he would want to be paid extra. I wouldn't judge him too much based on his appearance.

3) The coffin lid would have sentimental value for some people. It could be placed on an altar as a remembrance to the mother, much like your plans for the relics of the dying monk.

Speaking more generally, I think in any organised religion you will find all sorts of questionable practices. The important thing is how you yourself practice your chosen path.

[sleepyjohn]

"Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."

It's good to see the motivations behind our desires.

From: postsecret.blogspot.com/

[sabaijai]

"Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance."

It's good to see the motivations behind our desires.

From: postsecret.blogspot.com/

Cool postcard, intriguing blog project.

[robitusson]

The caste system is commonly shared by virtually all variations of what is known as Hinduism. The Buddhist rejection of the system was what was revolutionary at the time and still today about Buddhism. The difference between rebirth and reincarnation is a subtle but important. There is no transmigrating permanent soul in Buddhism obviously but there is reincarnation. The Buddhist scriptures are not some kind of divinely revealed text. The objectives of Hinduism and Budhism are at polar opposites from each other. Hindus aim to merge with the world soul or God-head Brahman and become part of everything. Buddhists are looking for annihilation and to become nothing. This was very radical in comparison to what is known as Hinduism at the time.

Obviously things have got even more complicated since then and they seem to have intertwined and become less clearly defined.

[chownah]

Well, I wouldn't say that Buddhists are looking for annihilation. The most basic teaching of the Buddha, a teaching that was repeated many times in the most basic of scriptures is that the Buddha only teaches how to end suffering in this life....he actually says this...he says (of course this is a translation), "I only teach the end of suffering." If you would like I could go out onto the net and find the name of a Sutta where he states this and bring back that section of text....just let me know if you are interested.

[robitusson]

I'm only using the term annihilation in comparison to Hinduism. Nibbana is sometimes translated as extinction. The end of suffering is nibbana, returning to nothingness as opposed to rejoining with the Godhead.

[ourmanflint]

Hi all..

I feel like chipping in here, to say that both Buddhism and Hinduism have their roots in the Brahman tradition, but Buddhism through Buddha, turned it's focus onto the plight of man, and the experience of life, while Hinduism continued in a more monistic and mythological direction. And while there are some Hindu sects that believe Buddha was a manifestation of Vishnu, there is I think a general accord in hinduism that he was not.

As to the Buddhist view of creation, I don't think there really is one, in as much as buddhists are only concerned with the experience of life, not metaphysical questions on the nature of the divine. But the root view that all reality IS Brahman, is not affected by buddhist belief. I think this is where the confusion with Hinduism comes into play, that Buddhism exists as a layer alongside Brahman and not in competition with it, the Brahman and Buddhist essential realities are the same thing.

In my opinion of course..