The Buddha and God

TheMadFool

Buddhism is quite different from other religions in that rationality and skepticism are encouraged. Suffering, a central tenet; impermanence, an undeniable truth; the middle path, the essence of life itself. So, I'm not making outlandish claims here. Of course there are certain aspects like rebirth and Karma which don't go down well with the modern materialistic worldview but these too have an, almost imperceptible, rational basis e.g. Karma is simply an extension of causation and there is evidence??? of reincarnation.

Buddha, indubitably, was a great mind and Buddhism does make sense. Before I forget, it's considered a religion that most agrees with the present understanding of our world. I don't know fully why this is the case but one reason why I think this ie so is the absence of a God. With this simple omission, the Buddha provides a good explanation of the fact of suffering (Karma) and also doesn't have to deal with the problem of evil that troubles God-basef religions. In short, Buddha's world is coherent - a very important characteristic of a good hypothesis.

It wasn't the case that the Buddha was unaware of the concept of God. Hinduism was the religion of his birth and God(s) is/are a fundamental part of that religion.

Given this was the case, it's quite obvious that the thought of a Creator, all good, all powerful, all knowing, must have crossed the Buddha's mind. Surely, he must've given it due consideration in his meditations.

What were the findings of this meditations? Did he discover God or did he come up empty handed? Was he unable to settle the matter?

I ask because, the Buddha never made any definitive statements about God. It's said he disdained metaphysical questions and would maintain, what is called, noble silence. The Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a God-creator.

We could take the Buddha's unwillingness to assert anything about God in a number of ways:

1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it

2. He didn't find God but didn't want to reveal it

3. He could neither prove nor disprove God

Allow me the assumption that the Buddha was a good man and thus devoted to the welfare of his followers and all mankind.

It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism?

Which of the 3 options given above do you think best explains Buddha's cryptic silence on the matter? Why?

CasKev

I think, like us, he could neither prove nor disprove God. He probably thought that people needed some form of moral guidance, and that Karma and rebirth were more believable than an all-powerful being that never communicates with us.

Agustino

He probably thought that people needed some form of moral guidance, and that Karma and rebirth were more believable than an all-powerful being that never communicates with us. — CasKev

You do realise this is clearly false - so in a society where everyone believed in God/gods you're saying that the Buddha thought that other things would be more believable? Like usual, you're taking the Buddha out of his context and bringing him in a modern context.

1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it — TheMadFool

Dharma - Buddha-nature - Nirvana -> they are not impermanent (annica). Dharma is often translated as the Tao in Chinese, and the Tao is translated as Logos in Europe, meaning the Word. I think Buddha did reveal - or at least he invited people to see for themselves.

Karma is virtually identical with sin in Christianity. There is no sin that will go unpunished in Buddhism (whether in this life or in the next), that's what Karma means. Even having sex with your own wife during the day - for example - is a sin according to the Dalai Lama, which will be punished. The fact that pink-flying pony Buddhists in the West believe otherwise doesn't change the roots of the religion.

Rich

Buddhism is quite different from other religions — TheMadFool

It does depend upon what Buddhism sect one refers to, since there is a multitude of major and minor branches. I would say that Buddhism, as practiced, can run the gamut of a simple, meditative philosophy to a full fledge religion. One can say the same for Daoism. I, myself, consider the basic tenets representing some reasonable philosophical thoughts.

With this simple omission, the Buddha provides a good explanation of the fact of suffering (Karma) and also doesn't have to deal with the problem of evil that troubles God-basef religions. In short, Buddha's world is coherent - a very important characteristic of a good hypothesis. — TheMadFool

Here it gets tricky, because as far as I know Buddha never wrote anything down and what was passed down was done so by oral transmission. What was finally written down, was done so in many different versions using language that had it's open historical context, some of which is in conflict and all of which is subject to all types of interpretations.

Thus, talking about Buddha's motives and omissions gets kind of tricky and extremely speculative and ultimately just another branch of Buddhist philosophy/religion.

CasKev

Like usual, you're taking the Buddha out of his context and bringing him in a modern context. — Agustino

Perhaps he was just a very advanced thinker for his time, and wanted to bring about peaceful revolution, by providing a less harmful unprovable alternative. With no God to justify atrocious acts in the name of religion, and no despair from the meaningless of life without God, there was just the notion that bad behavior would eventually lead to bad consequences, and good deeds and intent would be rewarded at some point. "And by the way everybody, Karma is going to follow you to your next life, so don't think you'll be off the hook when you die."

0 thru 9

Dharma - Buddha-nature - Nirvana -> they are not impermanent (annica). Dharma is often translated as the Tao in Chinese, and the Tao is translated as Logos in Europe, meaning the Word. I think Buddha did reveal - or at least he invited people to see for themselves. — Agustino

With this I would agree, with the additional side comment that it is taught that Nirvana and Samsara are ultimately not separated.

Karma is virtually identical with sin in Christianity. There is no sin that will go unpunished in Buddhism (whether in this life or in the next), that's what Karma means. — Agustino

Partially agree. Karma of course means "action", and all actions have consequences and results. Good actions will likewise have good re-actions. Hence, the encouragement towards right speech, right thinking, etc. The mind-blowing kicker here is that the goal is to move beyond the whole realm of karma entirely, avoiding earthly re-birth. Unless one is a bohdisattva, intentionally enduring re-birth for the good of others. At least as I generally understand it, the various branches of Buddhism have their own specific teachings.

Even having sex with your own wife during the day - for example - is a sin according to the Dalai Lama, which will be punished. — Agustino

Not disagreeing, just had not heard this before. Do you have a source for it? Even if so, it would seem to be in the realm of Tibetan Buddhism belief only.

The fact that pink-flying pony Buddhists in the West believe otherwise doesn't change the roots of the religion. — Agustino

Funny! May we all contribute our favorite caricatures and straw men? BTW, my flying pony is an irridescent purple.:D

0 thru 9

It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism? — TheMadFool

If i had to speculate, the knowledge itself wouldn't necessarily be the problem. I would imagine that during his life, Buddha had heard endless debates and arguments about countless beliefs. At a certain point, it becomes counterproductive. Meditation, prayer, and other efforts are neglected in the pursuit of debate. Metaphysical debates are like candy. If one has eaten nutritious food, candy isn't a problem. But if the entire diet is sweets...

Daniel Quinn's idea about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis may be relevant. He proposes that this tree is made only for the gods, as he calls them, and is the knowledge to run the world. When humans eat of this tree they do not get Knowledge, they only believe that they have the knowledge of the gods. And it is easy to see how that would go quickly astray.

Agustino

With no God to justify atrocious acts in the name of religion — CasKev

God wasn't used to justify any atrocity in the name of religion back in Buddha's day, so how do you suppose that he would have come to believe that?

With this I would agree, with the additional side comment that it is taught that Nirvana and Samsara are ultimately not separated. — 0 thru 9

Who told you that? That's what some sects of Mahayana Buddhism (especially those Western ones) believe, but the oldest version of Buddhism, the Theravada absolutely don't believe that, and it would most likely count as wrong-belief. Why? Because Samsara is dukkha & annica - Nirvana is not. Hence this difference prevents them from being the same.

The mind-blowing kicker here is that the goal is to move beyond the whole realm of karma entirely, avoiding earthly re-birth. — 0 thru 9

One second ago you were telling me that Samsara and Nirvana are not ultimately separate, so how is it possible to avoid re-birth? And what is it that avoids re-birth? The salvation from maya is achieved via asceticism and morality, certainly not by immoral practices, regardless of how much you meditate. That's part of the 8-Fold Path.

Not disagreeing, just had not heard this before. Do you have a source for it? Even if so, it would seem to be in the realm of Tibetan Buddhism belief only. — 0 thru 9

Many sources. Buddhism isn't what people in the West generally think it is. It's very very conservative in Asia. They adopted liberal stands in the West just to gain followers ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/tibet-china-feudalism

TheMadFool

think, like us, he could neither prove nor disprove God — CasKev

He could have said that. I don't see any clear and present danger in admitting agnosticism. Yet, he didn't. Why?

I think Buddha did reveal - or at least he invited people to see for themselves. — Agustino

Then why did the Buddha remain silent on the matter? Where in Buddhist scriptures is there anything about a creator god?

Thus, talking about Buddha's motives and omissions gets kind of tricky and extremely speculative and ultimately just another branch of Buddhist philosophy/religion — Rich

Yes, but it's not like we've to navigate a complex array of possibilities here. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. He found god
2. He didn't find god
3. He didn't know

He didn't say which. Why?

Daniel Quinn's idea about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis may be relevant — 0 thru 9

Thanks for pointing that out. So, Christianity also has something similar. In God's eyes, knowledge of good and evil is harmful. Why else would he forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree.

What exactly is the problem here? Buddha remains silent on God. God refuses to give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil

Agustino

Then why did the Buddha remain silent on the matter? — TheMadFool

Because he wanted people to see for themselves.

Rich

Yes, but it's not like we've to navigate a complex array of possibilities here. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. He found god
2. He didn't find god
3. He didn't know — TheMadFool

One can speculate over one of these possibilities, or a multitude of others. Each person has their own spirituality which spans a very broad spectrum. Trying to guess what someone might have thought thousands of years ago is very tricky, especially since one's ideas about spirituality tends c to change over one's lifetime.

CasKev

God wasn't used to justify any atrocity in the name of religion back in Buddha's day, so how do you suppose that he would have come to believe that? — Agustino

It's like @TheMadFool said - he could have anticipated the formation of extremism.

CasKev

He could have said that. I don't see any clear and present danger in admitting agnosticism. Yet, he didn't. Why? — TheMadFool

Why the cryptic silence? Perhaps he didn't have a strong opinion on the matter, and felt there was nothing to be gained from such a disclosure. Admitting that you don't know something is seen as a weakness to some. It's easier and probably wiser to reflect the question back to the asker, and let them find the same answer that you did; or simply to reply 'No comment'.

Agustino

It's like TheMadFool said - he could have anticipated the formation of extremism. — CasKev

Out of nowhere? :s With absolutely no indication that such extremism was even possible he thought about a way to prevent it... I don't buy that.

0 thru 9

Many sources. Buddhism isn't what people in the West generally think it is. It's very very conservative in Asia. — Agustino

Ok sure, generally speaking it may be more conservative in Asia. And there may be those interested in Buddhism that believe that it is a hippy dippy tantric party, or something. I can't speak for those theoretical people. East is East, and West is West. And though the two have met, they will never be identical twins. It would not surprise me if the Dalai Lama understands cultural differences and has different messages for different circumstances. Here is a example of his general take on sex. I am not necessarily agreeing nor disagreeing with him, just giving an example. The video you posted is humorous, but i am still cannot find the sources of these supposed strict doctrines from the Dalai Lama. But again, this is somewhat of a side issue, imho.

Who told you that? That's what some sects of Mahayana Buddhism (especially those Western ones) believe, but the oldest version of Buddhism, the Theravada absolutely don't believe that, and it would most likely count as wrong-belief. Why? Because Samsara is dukkha & annica - Nirvana is not. Hence this difference prevents them from being the same. — Agustino

Well, you answered your own question quite well. It is an Mayayana teaching. That doesn't qualify it as wrong necessarily, especially for a non-Buddhist to say, no offense. Or do you have some Buddhist practice, in addition to your obvious knowledge and study of it. (Not being judgmental or sarcastic, just an honest question. Because as I understand it, religions cannot be fully and completely understood from the outside. That is probably a whole other topic though). But I would say the Theravada position might be safer, for lack of a better word, less likely to be misunderstood especially by novices like me. In other words, for God all things are good, but for humans some things are good and some things are bad.

One second ago you were telling me that Samsara and Nirvana are not ultimately separate, so how is it possible to avoid re-birth? And what is it that avoids re-birth? — Agustino

Personally, I don't know for sure. Any answer I would give is speculation. But as I understand it, the general teaching says when one transcends Karma, then one is free of re-birth. Someone please correct this if it is mistaken, or add some further clarification.

Then why did the Buddha remain silent on the matter?
— TheMadFool
Because he wanted people to see for themselves. — Agustino

The salvation from maya is achieved via asceticism and morality, certainly not by immoral practices, regardless of how much you meditate. That's part of the 8-Fold Path. — Agustino

I would tend to agree with these statements.

Agustino

The video you posted is humorous, but i am still cannot find the sources of these supposed strict doctrines from the Dalai Lama. But again, this is somewhat of a side issue, imho. — 0 thru 9

It gives you all the sources in the video. They are written out for you with the respective dates! The assertion I referred to is from here.

0 thru 9

Daniel Quinn's idea about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis may be relevant
— 0 thru 9

Thanks for pointing that out. So, Christianity also has something similar. In God's eyes, knowledge of good and evil is harmful. Why else would he forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree.

What exactly is the problem here? Buddha remains silent on God. God refuses to give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil — TheMadFool

(Y) No problem whatsoever. The two different things seem to support each other, even coming from separate traditions. Knowledge of course is a wonderful, liberating thing. In Buddhism, wisdom is the opposite of the ignorance which births greed and hatred and countless scourges. Maybe a more helpful translation would be "the tree of One Who is Beyond Good and Evil". Which by definition would only be the Creator.

TheMadFool

Because he wanted people to see for themselves. — Agustino

An acceptable answer but why? What was/is it that made him decide the truth about God wasn't/isn't something to be shared? Given my assumption that Buddha was a decent soul the only possibility is that the truth about God is dangerous. This isn't a far-fetched interpretation. Look at history - crusades and now jihad. On the other hand we have materialistic nihilism which is depressing, to say the least.

So, affirming or denying God has negative consequences; consequences the Buddha, being a good man, didn't want to be responsible for. Anyway, he preempted fanaticism and nihilism by neither affirming nor denying god respectively.

:-} Looks like I've answered my own question.

That's my POV though and I'd like to read yours.

One can speculate — Rich

What do you think?

'No comment' — CasKev

I agree but that's a politician's tactic. Do you think Buddha was a shrewd politician - deftly avoiding controversy? Doesn't seem like it because he was also preaching Karma and rebirth, both equally hard to prove as God.

No problem whatsoever. — 0 thru 9

How so? The Buddha is censoring vital information.

Rich

One can speculate
— Rich

What do you think — TheMadFool

About God? Who knows? There are endless possibilities to choose from.

Agustino

An acceptable answer but why? — TheMadFool

Because the truth of God cannot be adequately conveyed through language.

0 thru 9

No problem whatsoever.
— 0 thru 9

How so? The Buddha is censoring vital information. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't put it that way, and i hope you don't actually think that is the case. It makes him seem uncompassionate, and it sounds like a conspiracy theory. :D I'm no expert. But of course do whatever works best for you... Like it was mentioned above, the Buddha wants each person to work it out for themselves. Fish can be a delicious meal, but unless I'm a baby penguin, I'd rather eat the fish myself rather than to have it regurgitated to me. The Buddha's final words, according to tradition:
"Behold, O monks, this is my advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation." (Y)

Wayfarer

What were the findings of this meditations? Did he discover God or did he come up empty handed? Was he unable to settle the matter? — TheMadFool

Whilst reason dictates against discussing such a recondite question with a person whose forum name is 'Mad Fool', I will hazard a reply.

The basic issue is a cultural one: at the time that the Hebrews tribes were downloading their texts from 'God', India had been comparatively civilized for millennia. There are archeological sites in Mohenjo Daro (modern Pakistan) with religious sculptures and a script that has never been translated, from 2,500 years ago. The Buddha was born into a culture that was alive with devas (the Hindu pantheon; the indo-european 'deva' is the root of 'divine').

The Buddha was a 'forest wanderer'. There were, and still are, a whole class of persons in Indian culture who renounce society and take to the seclusion of the forests in pursuit of enlightenment. The Buddha himself learned under two, whose names are preserved to this day, but then left dissatisfied. He spent six arduous years in ascetic meditation before eventually abandoning asceticism and realising Nirvāṇa under the Bo tree in what is now Bodh Gaya.

The account of the Buddha's search and enlightenment is far too lengthy to try and summarise in a Forum post. According to the Buddhist texts, what the Buddha discovered was the cause of dukkha (usually translated as sorrow, stress, or unhappiness), in terms of the 'chain of dependent origination', which is the sequence of causes that gives rise to dukkha. This operates at both a micro- and macro level, i.e. moment to moment in the mind, and lifetime to lifetime over vast periods ('aeons of kalpas'). The process of liberation is understanding those causes of sorrow through disciplined meditation which changes the way the mind interprets experience.

In respect of who the Buddha should regard as 'teacher', one particularly relevant verse is the one which records who the Buddha ought to revere as teacher. It reads as follows:

in this world with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more consummate in virtue than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.

— SN 6.2

Biblical revelation was never a part of the Buddha's life-world. He was born, taught, and died in North Eastern India, probably in the 6th-5th centuries B.C.E., before there was written language or trade between the two cultural spheres.

Wosret

They all comes out of yogic tradition. It wasn't so much that Buddha eschewed God, as much as that he thought that dogma was counter-productive, and led to pre-conception, and attachment, and got more in the way than helped, in my view.

What is often described as chaos and order, I think is better thought of as undifferentiated oneness, and discernment. Sense and judgment. "God" is this undifferentiated oneness, which is then filtered through conceptual schemes. Da Buddha didn't seem to trust conceptual schemes, and thought that dogmas was counter-productive. Language is limited, and even more than that, pre-conception and attachment to ideas is a source of delusion. Maya being "extraordinary power and wisdom". Having certain maps that are the ultimate truth makes one see things only though these schemes.

I think that all that is really important to note, is that every religious tradition agrees about one thing, and that is that morality is paramount. One isn't going to see undifferentiated oneness while treating themselves and everyone else as fundamentally different. Because "this is me", "this is mine" and such becomes justified with societal strata, economic status, age, creed, intelligence, attractiveness, and any other kind of differentiation that one may come up with. To cling to these, to hold fast to these, and to even speculate on a metaphysical delineation is a great obstacle.

Da Buddha only forwards practical, and moral precepts, that are practicable, things that you do, and not things that you believe.

For this reason, I don't think that Da Buddha has any real difference in end place as many many mystics, and religious traditions, but what differs is his approach on how to get there. What is by far the most important is that everyone gets there, in his view, and not sharing second hand what it's like, as that can never be truly shared in the first place. It just becomes an obstacle for everyone else.

Wosret

I'll also add that I don't believe that the western tradition is as developed. It comes down more to God, and Satan possession. The logos is God possession, in which one's words are selfless, and rise up directly from the source. Satan possession is the opposite, in that one's words are selfish, and come from self-interest. One comes from the source, and uses oneness as the guidepost. The other comes from the ego, and uses only the self as the guidepost.

TheMadFool

Whilst reason dictates against discussing such a recondite question with a person whose forum name is 'Mad Fool', I will hazard a reply. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the compliment :P

Anyway, one thing's clear. You've avoided answering the question, like the Buddha, I must say.

About God? Who knows? There are endless possibilities to choose from. — Rich

Give me a possibility that best explains Buddha's silence on God, in your opinion.

Because the truth of God cannot be adequately conveyed through language — Agustino

I understand describing God is not easy. However, Buddha simply had to answer a yes/no question: Does God exist?. What's so difficult about that? People, presumably not half as wise as thr Buddha, do it all the time.

↪0 thru 9

Yes, I was worried that my inquiry would be interpreted as a conspiracy theory. After all, my line of inquiry leads back to the first assumption I made: Buddha is a good man. Do you think it's possible to guess correctly what the Buddha's intentions were? Can we read his mind, so to speak? It doesn't look that difficult, since there are only 3 options which I've outlined above. Please try.

I think that all that is really important to note, is that every religious tradition agrees about one thing, and that is that morality is paramount — Wosret

Let's begin here. We can assume Buddha had the best interests of mankind in mind, morally. So, it follows that knowledge of God is harmful. Why else would he remain silent? Can you pick up the thread from there...

Wayfarer

[deleted]

Wosret

Let's begin here. We can assume Buddha had the best interests of mankind in mind, morally. So, it follows that knowledge of God is harmful. Why else would he remain silent? Can you pick up the thread from there... — TheMadFool

As I attempted to explain, knowledge of God is not harmful, but an empty image of God is. Isn't that also something western religions agree about? No idols, and even the name of God being something that can't even be pronounced. Literally unspeakable without misunderstanding.

TheMadFool

As I attempted to explain, knowledge of God is not harmful, but an empty image of God is. Isn't that also something western religions agree about? No idols, and even the name of God being something that can't even be pronounced. Literally unspeakable without misunderstanding — Wosret

So, you think Buddha was silent because God is ineffable.

Why didn't he say that? It's quite simple. You just said it. @Agustino said it. I think there's more to his silence than ineffableness simpliciter.

I'll refresh the page, so to speak:

1. Buddha found god
2. Buddha didn't find god
3. Buddha didn't know

There are three clear possibilities.

Assumption: Buddha was a good man, dedicated to alleviating suffering.

It follows that:

A) knowledge of God's existence is bad
B) knowledge of God's nonexistence is bad
C) knowledge of Buddha's ignorance is bad

A and B are reasonable. God was/is/will be a cause for discrimination/murder/war, etc. In these two options Buddha's good intent is preserved.

However, C is intriguing. Who stands to benefit by concealing ignorance? Quite obviously the ignorant concealer. Loss of reputation, credibility, all sorts of negative consequences follow from revealing one's ignorance. With C, Buddha loses his goodness. He's being deceitful. Of course, one can see a moral arithmetic whereby the Buddha achieves greater good by hiding his ignorance. However, these benefits are marred by the immorality of deceit on Buddha's part. Was Buddha a consequentialist?

@Wayfarer please have a look at my argument above.

Agustino

A) knowledge of God's existence is bad — TheMadFool

No it doesn't. It may be very beneficial, but impossible to communicate through words.

I understand describing God is not easy. However, Buddha simply had to answer a yes/no question: Does God exist?. What's so difficult about that? People, presumably not half as wise as thr Buddha, do it all the time. — TheMadFool

Because it's meaningless to answer questions of existence with regards to an X that people don't understand the meaning of.

Wosret

Third time around, I didn't say that. I said that conceptual schemes are not to be trusted, and "God" is a conceptual scheme. They're ideas, which one's experiences are filtered through. Da Buddha is pretty hardcore in his rejection of convention, and complete focus on personal experience, and practice.

Wosret

To put it more bluntly. Did Buddha find God? No, he didn't find anything at all.

The Buddha and God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions