Buddha kept silent about God

[dattaswami]

 

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

 

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.

[RongzomFan]

From the Buddhist point of view, Allah is merely a spirit or mundane gyalpo.

 

It has to be since everything is dependently originated.

[dattaswami]

From the Buddhist point of view, Allah is merely a spirit or mundane gyalpo.

 

It has to be since everything is dependently originated.

 

When I say that the world is a dream, you should not mistake it and confuse by thinking that everything in the world is a dream. If you analyse your wife and child, their souls and gross bodies are real. But their subtle bodies which are made up of feelings (gunas) are unreal. The vessel (gross body) and the water (causal body) are real. But the waves in the water (subtle body) are unreal, which constitutes the whole drama – dream. All the actors and the materials used in the picture shooting are real. Only the story, dialogues and the feelings expressed like attraction and hatredness are unreal. The Advaita scholars misunderstand here and say that the entire world is unreal.

[RongzomFan]

In Madhyamaka we also say everything is illusory. Not surprising since Advaita is derived from Madhyamaka.

 

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

[RongzomFan]

When I say that the world is a dream, you should not mistake it and confuse by thinking that everything in the world is a dream. If you analyse your wife and child, their souls and gross bodies are real. But their subtle bodies which are made up of feelings (gunas) are unreal. The vessel (gross body) and the water (causal body) are real. But the waves in the water (subtle body) are unreal, which constitutes the whole drama – dream. All the actors and the materials used in the picture shooting are real. Only the story, dialogues and the feelings expressed like attraction and hatredness are unreal. The Advaita scholars misunderstand here and say that the entire world is unreal.

 

You sound like a realist (buddhist definition).

[Cheshire Cat]

 

 

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda.

 

 

If something is beyond words, mind and logic, his province is outside of the human senses. That's because we name everything in our experience, we can think of what we experience and we can also use the logic to predict the future behavior of something.

 

That means:

God cannot be named. Thus he's not Allah.

God cannot be thought, Thus, there's no difference in being atheist or devotee: if you think of God in any way (even non-existent God), it's not.

God's behavior cannot be predicted by logic. Thus, you can't know what is pleasant to him, nor what he wants from you.

 

 

[RongzomFan]

Buddha was not silent about the topic of God. In fact he plainly stated that the "Creator" was merely a deluded sentient being. Google "Mahabrahma".

[thelerner]

Seems to me different Buddhists traditions have pointed in several directions. It may be with different groups monks vs lay people Buddha taught different things or at least from different angles on them. What impresses me is when people back up their arguments with the sutra they're derived from.

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

No, the Buddha wasn't silent about God.

 

The Pali texts written 400 yrs after the death of the Buddha have him relegate Brahma to a god status but to a mortal god.

 

The Pali texts also make no mention of Brahman, neuter term, AT ALL......

 

Lastly, the Pali texts are NOT indicative of what the Buddha actually said....Why?

After the Buddha died, his teachings became distorted...approx. 150 yrs after his death, the "24 schools period" arose.

At this time 24+ sects/schools existed which touted being the "true Dharma."

Out of these 24 sects, 2 remained till today...The modern "Theravada" & "Mahayana"

 

Here's a Wikipedia link....."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools"

 

So, WHO represents the Buddha's actual thought today? I would say the closest are the Theravada, Dzogchen/Mahamudra and Ch'an. All of these traditions contain the kernel of the Buddha's teaching which is 5 skhandas, Samsara, and getting out of Samsara = Nirvana/Nibbana.

 

I pesonally am of the persuasion that he DID in fact believe in God, both in God's personal & impersonal sense, but understood the limits of human thought & language as closed systems. Again, the Pali texts are NOT the most ancient sources of the Buddha's teaching just the oldest WRITTEN records.

 

God bless you and remember: Use bare/naked awareness in this life!

Stefos....

[forestofclarity]

No, the Buddha did not keep silent about God. Rather, Buddha taught the origin and cessation of suffering. According to traditional Buddhist lore, before the Buddha asked the gods to end suffering. Receiving no answer, he sat under the bodhi tree.

 

Look to the Kevatta Sutta. A monk goes up the entire retinue of gods looking for an answer to his question: where do the elements "cease without remainder." Finally, he gets to the Great Brahma:

 

'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'

 

 

"[T]he monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder.'

 

"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'

 

 

SPOILER ALERT!

 

 

The Buddha's answer:

 

The Buddha tells the monk he is asking the wrong question.

 

 

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?

"'And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

Edited February 1, 2013 by forestofemptiness

[RongzomFan]

The Pali texts written 400 yrs after the death of the Buddha have him regulate Brahma to a god status but to a mortal god.

 

The Pali texts also make no mention of Brahman, neuter term, AT ALL......

 

Lastly, the Pali texts are NOT indicative of what the Buddha actually said....Why?

After the Buddha died, his teachings became distorted...approx. 150 yrs after his death, the "24 schools period" arose.

At this time 24+ sects/schools existed which touted being the "true Dharma."

Out of these 24 sects, 2 remained till today...The modern "Theravada" & "Mahayana"

 

Here's a Wikipedia link....."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools"

 

So, WHO represents the Buddha's actual thought today? I would say the closest are the Theravada, Dzogchen/Mahamudra and Ch'an. All of these traditions contain the kernel of the Buddha's teaching which is 5 skhandas, Samsara, and getting out of Samsara = Nirvana/Nibbana.

 

I pesonally am of the persuasion that he DID in fact believe in God, both in God's personal & impersonal sense, but understood the limits of human thought & language as closed systems. Again, the Pali texts are NOT the most ancient sources of the Buddha's teaching just the oldest WRITTEN records.

 

God bless you and remember: Use bare/naked awareness in this life!

Stefos....

 

 

Vajrayana is based on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas of India......not Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

The Mahasiddhas were Buddhas in their own right.

 

Edited February 2, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

Vajrayana is based on the teachings of the Mahasiddhas of India, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

The Mahasiddhas were Buddhas in their own right.

 

Hi alwayson,

 

THE thing is this:

 

The Tibetan siddhas got their info from Indian Buddhism which took from Tantric "Hinduism" per se.

 

I'm not entirely sure of the Tantric history in India beside that of Sri Vidya....sorry.

 

The fact is that Vajrayana is not the Buddha's original teaching in sum total! How could it be?

We only have the Pali texts which date to 350 yrs at least AFTER the Buddha died.

Vajrayana is great, don't get me wrong. However, the Tibetan canon itself is not older than the Pali texts.

Also, the Buddha more than likely made provision to see that what he taught was continued as there exists no evidence to the counter.

 

No one knows what the Buddha truly taught unless a more ancient form of texts are found and even then

these are written texts! How far removed are they? What about the "24 schools" period of Buddhist confusion?

 

What do we, who practice "Buddhism" today have to logically say about this?

 

Furthermore, Most if not all "Buddhism" today is syncretistic. I do not believe we will find the sum total of what the Buddha taught....ultimately it is experienced and not codified in language only.

 

My 2 cents sir/miss/ma'am....God bless you!

stefos

Edited February 2, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

The fact is that Vajrayana is not the Buddha's original teaching in sum total! How could it be?

 

 

Again see previous post. Vajrayana is the teaching of the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

[stefos]

Depends on what you mean by God. To truly understand what the ancients meant by God, you have trace back thousands upon thousands of years and go back to African History. The masculine type of God is pretty distorted imo. Based entirely on belief and lack of experience of God. Most people refer to God as the being.

 

The thing of the Father and I are one refers to enlightenment. Not much to over analyze there unless you are enlightened.

Can't really say that the Buddha did not believe (kinda of a harsh word though) in Gods when in fact, he gave certain methods for people to ask for help of dieties. Since there were a multitude of gods in his day. it cracks me up how people there is only one "god" (the being) when in fact so much of our history shows that is not true. Thus the best way to really talk about God is to treat that word as the Tao. I don't like to use the word God because people keep referring back to the Bible concept of it that sets up duality in a sense.

 

I kinda lost interest in these type of conversations because it becomes purely based on logic. Kinda like Spock haha. Not that logic is bad but we're missing the other side of it: experience. I'm probably gonna be talking about the concept of god less and less to people. Because I don't care anymore if a person believes in God or not. I care about what I experience and there's no point of converting others to my point of view.

 

You're missing a lot of stuff about Muhammad. First of all, you gotta think about his level of realization. Was he only in samadhi? Did a deity visit him? Ironically, allat was used by the Africans which referred to the female reality.

 

Too much history is missed when we talk about the Gods and the idea of God. A lot of distortion got in the way and ignorance. Lack of experience too.

 

Hi malikshreds,

 

What I particularly refer to is the then understood concept of the neuter Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads.

 

Historians understand that in the time of the Buddha the term, Brahman, had many different interpretations actually.

 

It's my belief that the Buddha got fed up and said "Time to experience Brahman and not talk about it any more"

 

Modern scholarship shows that the Theravada interpretation of the Pali texts isnt' exactly true to the Pali corpus of texts either, even though this school is the historically oldest school. The Thera's interpretations on the Pali texts are conflicting as well in terms of the "hows" to meditation..Ex. kasinas, Anapansati, Bare awareness, etc. The Thera's have the various types of meditation but it's all kind of disjointed and not cohesive.....This means something is wrong, in my opinion.

 

My 2 cents,

stefos

[stefos]

Again see previous post. Vajrayana is the teaching of the Mahasiddhas, not Shakyamuni Buddha.

Understood.

 

The point I'm trying to make is: What did Shakyamuni teach???? Not "What did the Mahasiddhas teach?"

 

In Dzogchen, this is Garab Dorje teaching, not Shakyamuni nor the other Mahasiddhas.

 

stefos

[RongzomFan]

The point I'm trying to make is: What did Shakyamuni teach????

stefos

 

 

Longchenpa, Chokgyur Lingpa, the Mahasiddhas etc. are all Buddhas.

 

Why do you care about Shakyamuni taught?

[RongzomFan]

The Tibetan siddhas

 

 

You do realize that Vajrayana is Indian right?

 

Practiced in India for hundreds of years?

Edited February 2, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

You do realize that Vajrayana is Indian right?

 

Practiced in India for hundreds of years?

I understood that SOME things were done in India but not all Mahasiddhas practices.

 

I refer to the Tibetan Mahasiddhas and not the Indian ones.

 

Garab Dorje who taught Dzogchen was from Oddiyana not India.

 

stefos

[RongzomFan]

I understood that SOME things were done in India but not all Mahasiddhas practices.

 

I refer to the Tibetan Mahasiddhas and not the Indian ones.

 

Garab Dorje who taught Dzogchen was from Oddiyana not India.

 

stefos

 

 

The point is that there are different Buddhas besides Shakyamuni Buddha.

[stefos]

Longchenpa, Chokgyur Lingpa, the Mahasiddhas etc. are all Buddhas.

 

Why do you care about Shakyamuni taught?

O.K.....but why should I NOT care about what Shakyamuni taught?

 

I should care. Even in the Pali texts the Buddha is posited as saying "Don't believe what I say, experience it, think about it, see if it is so"

 

It's like saying "The mahayana is the FULL expression of what the Buddha stated"

IS it?.....The mahayana separated from the Sthaviravadins due to certain things as did the Sarvastivadins.

 

stefos

[RongzomFan]

O.K.....but why should I NOT care about what Shakyamuni taught?

stefos

 

 

Why should you care?

 

I don't care about what Shakyamuni taught, and I am a fundamentalist Buddhist.

[RongzomFan]

"The mahayana is the FULL expression of what the Buddha stated"IS it?.....The mahayana separated from the Sthaviravadins due to certain things as did the Sarvastivadins.

 

 

I would agree that the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and Madhyamaka are the distilled essence of Shakyamuni's teachings.

 

Mahayana arose in reaction to the crypto-realism of Abhidharma.

[Cheshire Cat]

What do you think of the Bon tradition?

[Protector]

Looks like the only way to be sure now is for someone to become a buddha

ANDY VOLUNTEERS?

[林愛偉]

The Buddha never was quiet about God (s). He spoke in depth about that state, and the many states of the many Gods and their realms. Especially on the God which Judeo-Christian and Arabic traditions follow.

 

That God, being named Lord Shakra Indra of the Heaven of 33. before reaching that status, was a woman who in her travels passed upon a statue of a Buddha. Finding it was losing its gold gild, and being weathered to destruction, got the townspeople, 32 of the women, to get together and get donations and build a shelter for the statue. Then they reguilded it, and made an outlet for others to be inspired to cultivate the way.

 

The merit and virtue amassed from that deed, in helping others cultivate the way, was reaped as being given a seat within the desire realm, rebirth as a God. The 33 heavens of the desire realm are not in a hierarchy, but just in a position that the 33rd heaven is smack in the middle.

 

This God, is named Shakra Indra, also the Jade emperor, also Allah, or the Judeo-Christian God of "all creation".

 

There is so much more to this, but above is just a brief explanation. There are sutra which expound on this. The Avatamsaka Sutra speaks on this, as well as Shurangama Sutra (briefly) and Brahma Net Sutra, as well as others which leave my memory.

 

Buddha meant that though a God is a very high position of cultivation attained by one's merit and virtue, they are still subject to birth and death, and are also not the "highest" in terms of realization. Respect them, and even ask for their blessings, but it is more beneficial to cultivate the ways of one fully realized, and has ended the cycle of birth and death.

 

But if one feels strong affinities with certain Gods, be it they are wholesome and not demonic kings, by all means those wholesome Gods will teach the expedient methods in order to reel the cultivator in, and once the cultivator is within the heavens upon their rebirth there, they will be taught the teachings for the next step and realize what they couldn't realize while they were humans.

 

 

*** Also, Buddhism was on this planet for thousands and thousands of years, I mean so many thousands of years.It just wasn't in the name "Buddhism" persay, as it was in the mannerism of the cultivatio nof the way, and or the way to realize complete and perfect enlightenment. Cultivation methods were on this planet more than 6 Buddhas ago. And over time they get watered down, and or taught in different cultures. Changing a bit, those teaching's "origin" gets forgotten and or mixed with cultural influences.

Edited February 2, 2013 by 林愛偉