A god was key in saving Buddhism

[3bob]

Edited June 14, 2010 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

--- Imagine that, a God being the pivotal key in saving Buddhism (as from Shakyamuni Buddha) right at its beginning! Maybe this sutta will give anti-goders something new to consider but I'm not betting on it ---

 

Om

 

No, don't bet any money on it. But it was a neat story. Reminded me of one by Chuang Tzu.

 

Peace & Love!

[xabir2005]

[Encephalon]

--- Imagine that, a God being the pivotal key in saving Buddhism (as from Shakyamuni Buddha) right at its beginning! Maybe this sutta will give anti-goders something new to consider but I'm not betting on it ---

 

Om

 

I would invite you to spend less time wrestling with ancient Buddhist cosmology, which was borne out of the Hindu orthodoxy of the day, and take heed of the Buddha's admonitions against pointless metaphysical speculation. I would then invite you to examine your practice of constructing a false dichotomy between people who allegedly believe in a god and those who do not. If this is what you have drawn from your studies then you have missed the entirety of the Buddha's teachings.

[de_paradise]

Indeed. The existence/non-existence of a creator god is the biggest red herring in religion and in atheism. A cultivator methodically merges with the Tao, but the merging to a creator god yields the same results as far as jing-qi-shen transformation. What I mean is that if you sit down and contemplate and meditate your mind to merge with the everythingness, it doesnt matter what you call it or what you attribute to it, as long as it contains an everythingness element to it. The idea is that you want to become a higher being yourself. Anything that stands in your way to becoming a higher being, such as the arguement of whether a creator god exists or not, and by not understanding how cultivation can work whether you use this concept or something different, is getting bogged down in pointless speculation.

Edited May 31, 2010 by de_paradise

[3bob]

(from Xabir)

"No true Buddhists have ever denied the existence of gods". Agreed

 

"All true Buddhists have denied the existence of a God" (with the capital G, aka a Creator). debateable

[3bob]

(from Blasto)

"I would invite you to spend less time wrestling with ancient Buddhist cosmology, which was borne out of the Hindu orthodoxy of the day, and take heed of the Buddha's admonitions against pointless metaphysical speculation. I would then invite you to examine your practice of constructing a false dichotomy between people who allegedly believe in a god and those who do not. If this is what you have drawn from your studies then you have missed the entirety of the Buddha's teachings".

 

What is interesting to consider is that the Buddha had many great metaphysical powers (as told of and recorded in many well known and respected suttas) thus he did not have to speculate about such...and neither do we; thus he can not knock the tools that he in fact used! (if you are implying such?) Btw, I do agree that purely quasi-intellectual speculation along these lines is at least problematic. Further, no one needs me to construct a dichotomy (whether true or false) about beliefs, no thank you very much anyway; for such has been going on for ages without my help, thus for myself or anyone else to make such an observation about the histories of mankind is making an obvious and common examination. (examinations such as the Buddha also made)

 

Have a happy and fury fun filled day.

 

Om

Edited May 31, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

Indeed. The existence/non-existence of a creator god is the biggest red herring in religion and in atheism. A cultivator methodically merges with the Tao, but the merging to a creator god yields the same results as far as jing-qi-shen transformation. What I mean is that if you sit down and contemplate and meditate your mind to merge with the everythingness, it doesnt matter what you call it or what you attribute to it, as long as it contains an everythingness element to it. The idea is that you want to become a higher being yourself. Anything that stands in your way to becoming a higher being, such as the arguement of whether a creator god exists or not, and by not understanding how cultivation can work whether you use this concept or something different, is getting bogged down in pointless speculation.

 

Ok, I'll buy that, although even "pointless specualation" has a point --- in that it to has to be worked through or transmutated just like any other type of problem.

[3bob]

No, don't bet any money on it. But it was a neat story. Reminded me of one by Chuang Tzu.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hi MH,

Glad you liked the sound of the account... btw, I don't believe it would be included in Buddhsit doctrine if it was meant just as a tale or an entertaining yarn, do you?

[xabir2005]

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Encephalon]

Hi MH,

Glad you liked the sound of the account... btw, I don't believe it would be included in Buddhsit doctrine if it was meant just as a tale or an entertaining yarn, do you?

 

If you're truly serious about this issue and are ready to bring some scholarship to your intellectual practice then I could recommend "A Buddhist History of the West" by David Loy, ch. 6 specifically. At some point you will be obliged to study the intellectual history of Buddhism and religious and philosophical movements generally. Original ideas are subject to a myriad of permutations as successive generations contribute their own interpretations, which are in turn colored by their own cultural influences. Most of us have no difficulty in recognizing the effects that successive generations of Christians have had on Christ's original intent. The same dynamics hold true for most other philosophical and religious movements, including Buddhism (perhaps, even Buddhism in particular). The point that needs to be made here is that the practice of trying to decipher original ideas from the study of doctrines that were written hundreds of years after the founder of the ideas is an exercise fraught with tremendous difficulty, perhaps even futility, and gives fodder to the petty battles over metaphysics and semantics.

 

I recommend Loy only if you have already enrolled in an introductory class in Buddhism or Asian Studies. But I encourage you to investigate why you are clinging to a theistic interpretation of Buddhist origins, as it will continue to color any further arguments you make. Also, please be aware that Buddhism can be studied both as an academic subject and as an experiential path to liberation. Both routes are inexorably bound together, but we are obliged to maintain a critical awareness of the relationship between the two.

[Sunya]

If this proposition is true, then, by the OP where the Buddha does not do this, but does the exact opposite: asserts an existing God that spoke to him, then we must conclude that the Buddha was not a true Buddhist.

 

Since I believe the Buddha was a true Buddhist, I don't believe the assumption that all true Buddhists have denied God's existence ... because I can think of one true Buddhist who affirmed it, the most important one. Thus Buddhism is not athiesm per se or by definition at all. Yikes!

 

 

There is a difference between God and a god. Supposedly Brahma spoke to Buddha after his nirvana and begged him to teach. This does not mean that Brahma was the One monotheistic Creator God that we are used to here in the West. A god is one type of being. They live a very long time but are not immune to impermanence death and suffering like everyone else. This is how gods are seen in Buddhism.

 

As for Buddhism and atheism, it most certainly is atheist. Theism is the belief in a creator God, since Buddha and all Buddhists after him have denied the existence of a Creator, it is an atheist tradition.

Edited May 31, 2010 by mikaelz

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

Hi MH,

Glad you liked the sound of the account... btw, I don't believe it would be included in Buddhsit doctrine if it was meant just as a tale or an entertaining yarn, do you?

 

Hi 3bob,

 

Blasto spoke very well to this.

 

But yes, I think that in all religions much has been added to the original philosophy in order to cause it to appear more valuable than it would otherwise appear. I can't speak directly to Buddhism in this regard due to my forgetfulness and lack of knowledge but these things can easily be pick out of the Christian Bible.

 

Even the Taoist Religion has done the embellishment trick.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

If you're truly serious about this issue and are ready to bring some scholarship to your intellectual practice then I could recommend "A Buddhist History of the West" by David Loy, ch. 6 specifically. At some point you will be obliged to study the intellectual history of Buddhism and religious and philosophical movements generally. Original ideas are subject to a myriad of permutations as successive generations contribute their own interpretations, which are in turn colored by their own cultural influences. Most of us have no difficulty in recognizing the effects that successive generations of Christians have had on Christ's original intent. The same dynamics hold true for most other philosophical and religious movements, including Buddhism (perhaps, even Buddhism in particular). The point that needs to be made here is that the practice of trying to decipher original ideas from the study of doctrines that were written hundreds of years after the founder of the ideas is an exercise fraught with tremendous difficulty, perhaps even futility, and gives fodder to the petty battles over metaphysics and semantics.

 

I recommend Loy only if you have already enrolled in an introductory class in Buddhism or Asian Studies. But I encourage you to investigate why you are clinging to a theistic interpretation of Buddhist origins, as it will continue to color any further arguments you make. Also, please be aware that Buddhism can be studied both as an academic subject and as an experiential path to liberation. Both routes are inexorably bound together, but we are obliged to maintain a critical awareness of the relationship between the two.

 

Wow Blasto, you assume a lot about a lot... good luck.

 

Om

[3bob]

Hi 3bob,

 

Blasto spoke very well to this.

 

But yes, I think that in all religions much has been added to the original philosophy in order to cause it to appear more valuable than it would otherwise appear. I can't speak directly to Buddhism in this regard due to my forgetfulness and lack of knowledge but these things can easily be pick out of the Christian Bible.

 

Even the Taoist Religion has done the embellishment trick.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Embellishment is nothing new or unique to any type of human activities or goings on,

thus I suggest that we do not throw the baby out with the embellishments and then consider ourselves wise in doing so.

 

Om

Edited June 1, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

Buddha:

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why does he order such misfortune

And not create concord?

 

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance

And he such inequity and injustice create?

 

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Then an evil master is he,

Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

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

 

Buddha:

Origin of the Belief in a Creator God

 

Now, there comes a time, monks, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long period, this world-system passes away. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long period of time.

 

Now, there comes a time, monks, when, sooner or later, this world-system begins to re-evolve. When this happens the Palace of Brahma appears, but it is empty. And some being or other, either because his span of years has passed or his merit is exhausted, falls from the World of Radiance, and comes to life in the Palace of Brahma. And there also he lives made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from himself, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus does he remain for a long, long period of time.

 

Now there arises in him, from his dwelling there so long alone, a dissatisfaction and a longing: O! would that other beings might come to join me in this place!, And, just then, either because their span of years had passed or their merit was exhausted, other beings fall from the World of Radiance, and appear in the Palace of Brahma as companions to him, and in all respects like him.

 

On this, monks, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-Seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be. These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, Would that they might come! And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came.

 

And those beings themselves too think thus: This must be Brahma, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-Seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we must have been created by him. And why? Because, as we see, it was he who was here first, and we came after that.

 

On this, monks, the one who first came into existence there is of longer life and more glorious, and more powerful than those who appeared after him. And it might well be, monks, that some being on his falling from that state, should come hither. And having come hither he might go forth from the household life into the homeless state. And having thus become a recluse he, by reason of ardour, of exertion, of application, of earnestness, of careful thought, reaches such rapture of heart that, rapt in heart, he calls to mind his last dwelling-place, but not the previous ones. He says to himself: That illustrious Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-Seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be, he by whom we were created, he is steadfast, immutable, eternal, of a nature that knows no change, and he will remain so for ever and ever. But we who were created by him have come hither as being impermanent, mutable, limited in duration of life.

 

This, monks, is the first state of things on account of which, starting out from which, some recluses and brahmans, being eternalists as to some things, and non-eternalists as to others, maintain that the soul and the world are partly eternal and partly not.

 

From Digha Nikaya No. 1: Brahmajala Sutta.

Translated by Prof. Rhys Davids.

 

"Lama Surya Das

Question:

Is there a God in Buddhism? I read in a book by the pope that Buddhism is atheistic and life-denying.

 

Answer:

I read the same thing in the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," in a chapter called "Buddha?" But the pontiff should know better, or at least be better informed by his scholar-advisers.

 

Buddhism is neither atheistic nor life-denying. We can witness this in the great surge of socially activist Buddhists in the Western countries today, which includes the widespread movement of so-called "engaged Buddhism" founded in part by the Vietnamese Zen master, poet, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. There is great affirmation and hope in Buddhist teaching, or Buddha-dharma, and great respect and reverence for life in all its forms, human and otherwise.

 

In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator*. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism"

 

(*) a big difference stated here compared to what some profess.

Edited June 1, 2010 by 3bob

[Encephalon]

Wow Blasto, you assume a lot about a lot... good luck.

 

Om

 

You're free to address my "assumptions" if you're up to it. Good luck indeed.

 

And yes, Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism without Beliefs" is a gem amongst the literature of agnostic Buddhism, although his most recent book is "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist."

Edited June 1, 2010 by Blasto

[C T]

hello 3Bob,

 

Which is a more viable consideration - a god being the key to saving Buddhism, as you claim, or the karmic propensity of the Buddha that enabled Buddhism to be born in this world-time? According to many sources, long before the birth of Gotama, the wheels were already set in motion for the people to receive Buddhism, to be introduced by this man called Shakyamuni. Your promulgation of the affirming notion that a god was key is therefore quite debatable. This god may indeed have been part of the karmic force that gave birth to Buddhism, but in the eyes of many, he is no more significant than all the other imputations and causes that brought the teachings to life. As i understand it, this is how the principle of interdependent origination works anyway - not one thing or person, or a god for that matter, is more or less significant in the causes and conditions that give rise, and lead to the cessation, of any phenomena, Buddhism not excluded.

 

At the crux of the philosophy we can see that those who seek the teachings of Buddha aims to unbind their false beliefs, to free the grasping mind of all fetters, which then takes one to the other shore, metaphorically speaking. This to me will alway be the core purpose of Buddhism, and for it i continue to venerate and be grateful to the Buddha as the Primordial Being that revealed this possibility, perhaps one of the most effective and simple paths towards liberation among a few others, and if this god was somehow part of the equation in the grand scheme, then in my veneration, (since all things are connected) it seems a logical deduction that he too, is contained within my thankful mindstream, and so are you, for that matter, in creating this thread. Since we are not able to determine exactly which aspect of 3Bob played the more significant role at the inception of this (the thread), likewise, it would be rather unwise to determine that a god was 'key' in saving Buddhism. Granted, he played his part, thats the extent of his involvement, i think. I hope that's a fair assumption.

 

Have a pleasant day my friend.

[xabir2005]

"Lama Surya Das

Question:

Is there a God in Buddhism? I read in a book by the pope that Buddhism is atheistic and life-denying.

 

Answer:

I read the same thing in the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," in a chapter called "Buddha?" But the pontiff should know better, or at least be better informed by his scholar-advisers.

 

Buddhism is neither atheistic nor life-denying. We can witness this in the great surge of socially activist Buddhists in the Western countries today, which includes the widespread movement of so-called "engaged Buddhism" founded in part by the Vietnamese Zen master, poet, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. There is great affirmation and hope in Buddhist teaching, or Buddha-dharma, and great respect and reverence for life in all its forms, human and otherwise.

 

In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator*. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism"

 

(*) a big difference stated here compared to what some profess.

Buddha kept quiet in some cases, but outright rejected in other cases such as the quotes I quoted from.

 

Anyway regarding the Maha Brahma guy who thought he was God -

 

http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:

 

When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"

 

The king replied, "Yes, it is."

 

Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"

 

The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."

 

Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."

 

Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.

[3bob]

hello 3Bob,

 

Which is a more viable consideration - a god being the key to saving Buddhism, as you claim, or the karmic propensity of the Buddha that enabled Buddhism to be born in this world-time? According to many sources, long before the birth of Gotama, the wheels were already set in motion for the people to receive Buddhism, to be introduced by this man called Shakyamuni. Your promulgation of the affirming notion that a god was key is therefore quite debatable. This god may indeed have been part of the karmic force that gave birth to Buddhism, but in the eyes of many, he is no more significant than all the other imputations and causes that brought the teachings to life. As i understand it, this is how the principle of interdependent origination works anyway - not one thing or person, or a god for that matter, is more or less significant in the causes and conditions that give rise, and lead to the cessation, of any phenomena, Buddhism not excluded.

 

At the crux of the philosophy we can see that those who seek the teachings of Buddha aims to unbind their false beliefs, to free the grasping mind of all fetters, which then takes one to the other shore, metaphorically speaking. This to me will alway be the core purpose of Buddhism, and for it i continue to venerate and be grateful to the Buddha as the Primordial Being that revealed this possibility, perhaps one of the most effective and simple paths towards liberation among a few others, and if this god was somehow part of the equation in the grand scheme, then in my veneration, (since all things are connected) it seems a logical deduction that he too, is contained within my thankful mindstream, and so are you, for that matter, in creating this thread. Since we are not able to determine exactly which aspect of 3Bob played the more significant role at the inception of this (the thread), likewise, it would be rather unwise to determine that a god was 'key' in saving Buddhism. Granted, he played his part, thats the extent of his involvement, i think. I hope that's a fair assumption.

 

Have a pleasant day my friend.

 

Thanks CowTao,

 

An interesting and thought provoking post on your part. The sutta I copied and posted speaks to me as Brahma Sahampati as being a key figure at that particular moment, (Btw, I'm not claiming that that god was Lord Brahma as in Hinduism since I'm quoting a Buddhist sutta :-) but I see your line of reasoning as also being important since who is to say which related or seemingly unrelated event, moment or Being was really the most "key" in the process since so much (and ultimately everything) is all linked together in one way or another. Your post also implys aspects of fate to me, as in sounding like the particular Being of the Shakymuni Buddha was fated to bring out the teachings of Buddhism. (and that is another major subject :-) Along another line I was somewhat surprized to hear you use the term, "Primordial Being" - that is because I seldom hear Buddhists advocating there conceptually, or at least such is my impression? (at this site anyway) My way of thinking has the "Buddha Nature" using the vehicle of the Indian prince to bring out the teachings and or dharmas, thus his particular person is important and key during those moments of his life but still secondary to the Buddha Nature in all beings that is being pointed to by that vehicle.

Edited June 1, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

Buddha kept quiet in some cases, but outright rejected in other cases such as the quotes I quoted from.

 

Anyway regarding the Maha Brahma guy who thought he was God -

 

http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:

 

When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"

 

The king replied, "Yes, it is."

 

Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"

 

The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."

 

Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."

 

Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.

 

I did not bring up or quote the term "Maha Brahma". Btw, in your particular quote I think the Buddha may be palying or using the the "devils advocate" method in apparently putting blame on God or any god for the sufferings in duality... yet the deeper teachings of Buddhism is, "NO BLAME".

Edited June 1, 2010 by 3bob

[C T]

Its not fate in this sense, 3Bob, but the continual culmination of causes and conditions that gave rise to 'Buddhism' as we know it today. Who can say, for example, in some distant time, Buddhism might be extinguished, but this probability, even if it comes to pass, can never negate the fact that 2500 years ago, conditions arose favorably for the birth of the Tatagatha and the subsequent dissemination of Buddhism.

 

As regards to Primordial Being, what i meant was that the Buddha was the original head honcho who made it happen in this era of ours, and in that, refuge is taken by many, of whom the least significant is myself.

 

Thank you for the kind response. Much appreciated sir.

[Marblehead]

Embellishment is nothing new or unique to any type of human activities or goings on,

thus I suggest that we do not throw the baby out with the embellishments and then consider ourselves wise in doing so.

 

Om

 

I certainly agree with this. We must be careful of what we throw out. We might leave ourselves lost and lonely. Before we create an open space by throwing something our we should have something to fill the emptiness that has been created by throwing stuff out.

 

Peace & Love!