[OvDojQXN]

Good Afternoon all!

I'm interested, me, being an atheist, would like to know how many Buddhist actually believe in a higher deity or god. I know there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching to say there is a god, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also nothing to say there isn't a god.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your views and beliefs!

Best wishes,

Callum

[Nosmas]

Since modern day technology has been in the hands of the majority of the modern world, you know, video recording technology, have you seen any Gods being posted up on the internet or in the news? No.

Since most of the world has become Christian, have you heard alot, if any, of reports of other Gods sending down lightning bolts from the sky, and the like? No. Since Christianity, those Gods became myths and/or demons. Just a matter of time before Jehovah himself becomes a myth.

We have outgrown that nonsense, in my opinion. All the more power to those that still believe and cling to the old Gods, Jehovah included, that seem, for a reason, non-existent.

I follow Buddhism as a way of life and philosophy. There is no room for the supernatural in it for me personally. There is however, plenty of room for science and rationality, evolution and logic.

[SobiquYo]

Hi Callum
Personally I find it a challenge at times that Buddha drew a line on teaching "suffering and the end of suffering" only and didn't go into the God concept. It is a challenge as the question of what 'created' this world or where it resides is still not satisfied without putting faith into the Dhamma. I also do not believe The Buddha advocated Atheism or Agnosticism (or any ism) as ways which would aid the end of suffering. I mention this as I used to think Buddhism was Atheistic until I started studying it.

The Buddha seemed to apply that we should not to add or take away anything different to what the Buddha taught. E.g. The Buddha's advice when pushed on the question of the soul and eternalism was to assert that the monk Malunkyovada, should be clear on what was declared and what was not declared.
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared." - MN 63 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....063.than.html

Metta

[MpNelQTU]

Hi Callum,

This might be helpful:



Do Buddhists believe in god?


No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.

All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

CONTINUED:

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

with kind wishes

Aloka

[whimpykid]

I am a Buddhist my self, and i do believe there is Gods and also other Buddhas. The reason i have this opinion are because there are so many religions in this world and i dont think Buddhism is the only path that is correct. each Cultivating way has its own teacher and that to me means it has to be more then just one Buddha out there

The thinker

[amberamuletuk]

correct me if I'm wrong, there is also nothing to say there isn't a god.

hi Callum

buddhism teaches creation occurs due to the law of cause & effect affecting the various elements of nature (similar to science)

so the idea of a creator god is certainly redundant in buddhism

when buddhism speaks of 'gods', it is referring to human beings with power & influence

regards




Buddhism teaches that all things, both material and immaterial, are entirely subject to the direction of causes and are interdependent. This natural course of things is called in common terms "the law of nature," and in the Pali language niyama, literally meaning "certainty" or "fixed way," referring to the fact that specific determinants inevitably lead to corresponding results.

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:

1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.

2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.

4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."

5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

The first four niyama are contained within, or based on, the fifth one, Dhammaniyama, the Law of Dhamma, or the Law of Nature. It may be questioned why Dhammaniyama, being as it were the totality, is also included within the subdivisions. This is because this fourfold categorization does not cover the entire extent of Dhammaniyama.

Law of nature

[12dargernswearf]

Callum, before this goes any further a more detailed definition of "god" would be appreciated. In the modern era there are many different ideas about what god is.

[DoctorAlexandro]

Good Afternoon all!

I'm interested, me, being an atheist, would like to know how many Buddhist actually believe in a higher deity or god.

Hi Callum,

I don't think it is important to get entangled with the ideas about 'if there is or there is not a God'.

God is a believe. A religious believe.

And like that believe there are many others which can show a high level of sophistication... but at the end of the day, those are religious believes too.

Believes, IMO, are useless.

Confidence through verification of tangible experiences, IMO, is what has value for the practice of the teachings of Gotama Buddha.

[Tndfpcin]

Freakpower70, there is absolutely no need for that. It is clear in his original post what he meant by a god.

"I'm interested, me, being an atheist, would like to know how many Buddhist actually believe in a higher deity or god. I know there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching to say there is a god, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also nothing to say there isn't a god."

If you have a different definition as far as your own personal beliefs go, or those of other schools, then it is up to you to define it. There is no need to nitpick.

[onlineslotetes]

Good Afternoon all!

I'm interested, me, being an atheist, would like to know how many Buddhist actually believe in a higher deity or god. I know there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching to say there is a god, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is also nothing to say there isn't a god.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your views and beliefs!

Just my opinion, FWIW. Not much.

I think Buddhists are sometimes inconsistent on this topic. One one hand, Buddhism is often described by Buddhists as a system of philosophy more than a religion, and Buddha is often described as a human teacher, not a god.

On the other hand, most Buddhists believe that Buddha had knowledge and understanding so vast that it seems omniscient, or nearly so. Gods are omniscient, merely human teachers are not. Many Buddhists believe that Buddha's understanding and his recorded scriptures are infallible, or nearly so. Gods are infallible, mere human beings are not.

In scripture, Buddha describes his vivid recollection of his many past lives. In previous lives, he claims, he was the ruler of heaven-worlds or hell-worlds, more or less a demon or a god.

I've heard some Buddhists argue that mere humans could have the Buddha's kind of omniscience and infallibility. Perhaps so, though, personally, I remain skeptical.

As far as I can tell, some modern Western Buddhists accept these claims, some are skeptical, and some seem to avoid the topic, probably because they don't want to get into pointless debates with fellow Buddhists.

Cheers,

Bopshibobshibop

[Eunatis]

I sometimes refer to myself as an Atheist. I think the Buddha Dhamma makes far more sense without any supernatural element then with them. But really it's rather irrelevant to the core teachings. As oliver said Buddha taught suffering and the cessation of suffering.

[GustavM]

Hi my friend, I'd just like to touch in a couple parts of your post.

Buddhism is often described by Buddhists as a system of philosophy more than a religion, and Buddha is often described as a human teacher, not a god. I like the comment HHDL makes when he says that the philosophy of Buddhism can be practiced by anyone in any religion or belief system. It is not a belief in a "god" but just the right way to treat others and ourselves.

Gods are omniscient, merely human teachers are not. Many Buddhists believe that Buddha's understanding and his recorded scriptures are infallible, or nearly so. Gods are infallible, mere human beings are not. Buddha was Awakened and realized the Truth of existence. To some this is omniscient, to others it is just a proper understanding of The 4 Noble Truths. That taken into consideration, the teachings could be infallible as they teach us that life is suffering and how to overcome this suffering we experience.

In scripture, Buddha describes his vivid recollection of his many past lives. In previous lives, he claims, he was the ruler of heaven-worlds or hell-worlds, more or less a demon or a god. I'm not going to really say much here as this refers to rebirth, a well beaten topic as of late.
But if there are other worlds/realms, someones got to rule them. Be it the realm of a Wheel turning god, a Deva or a hungry ghost/preta as well as the others Buddha taught about.


With Metta

[QbCp7LaZ]

I am a Buddhist my self, and i do believe there is Gods and also other Buddhas....... that to me means it has to be more then just one Buddha out there

The thinker

Hi The Thinker,

Yes there are other Buddhas, Shakyamuni Buddha is just the Buddha of this fortunate eon.
He was not the first Buddha nor the last to come.
Maitreya is said to be the next Buddha to come.

With Metta

[Cerilopasei]

Again i am agree with you theseeking1

For there is only One Buddha i want to follow and that is Shakyamuni.
As long a person find his or her beliefs to be of one of the religions in this world and it is a true teaching behind it, then it is not so important what way they follow as long it is only from one teacher at the time

The thinker

[SpyRemo]

Just my two cents, while some forms of Buddhism, such as Tibetan, have a lot of "gods", I've been led to understand that those gods aren't meant to be understood as real entities, but rather aspects of the practitioner's mind. Aids to focus the mind during mediation, but they aren't understood to actually exist. Perhaps Jungian Archetypes would be a good way of explaining them.

[RSAccountssy]

I have understood that the larger part of tibetan society certainly considered these gods to be among the real.

Also, an interesting point on omniscience that comes to me from Matthieu Richard in his book The Quantum And The Lotus: A Journey To The Frontiers Where Science And Buddhism Meet is that this omniscience is not but be considered as knowing everything but rather the ability to see all causes and effects at one particular moment. This idea would make more sense considering buddhism refutes the idea of fate or decided destiny.

[Triiooman]

Just my two cents, while some forms of Buddhism, such as Tibetan, have a lot of "gods", I've been led to understand that those gods aren't meant to be understood as real entities, but rather aspects of the practitioner's mind. Aids to focus the mind during mediation, but they aren't understood to actually exist. Perhaps Jungian Archetypes would be a good way of explaining them.

There are some very interestingly diverse teachings regarding God's, Demons, Dakinis, Pretas etc in different Vajrayana lineages (It would be better to term the tradition 'Vajrayana' as it is not exclusively 'Tibetan' nor are all Tibetans Vajrayana adherents) Even within the lineages themselves you will find diverse emphasis on these beings form and function.
It is a huge area of debate and study and one that cannot be approached in any meaningful manner without a reasonable grasp of Vajrayana including Sutric and Tantric discipline (I am not suggesting that Sutra and Tantra can be seperated, they are in fact mutually inclusive in the Vajra world)

[GenryDont]

Just my two cents, while some forms of Buddhism, such as Tibetan, have a lot of "gods", I've been led to understand that those gods aren't meant to be understood as real entities, but rather aspects of the practitioner's mind. Aids to focus the mind during mediation, but they aren't understood to actually exist. Perhaps Jungian Archetypes would be a good way of explaining them.

It all depends on who does the explaining. There is no consensus among Buddhists on this point, and no person or organization has the authority to speak on behalf of all Buddhists.

I don't think Buddhists anywhere would want Jungians speaking on their behalf.

Bopshibobshibop

[HaroTaure]

I'd take Jung over Freud.

[refdhbgtd]

I'd take Jung over Freud.

as would I