PDA

View Full Version : Discussion about God with Buddhist



Spiritualseeker
17 August 2009, 07:54 PM
Namaste,

I am currently discussing the concept of God in hinduism with buddhist on this thread http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1798&start=80 if you read sections 5 & 6 you can see the discussion. I was just wondering is there any good responses I can give? I am not there to debate just to learn but I wanted to hear their views on the hindu concept of God since it is much different then the western concept.

Spiritualseeker
18 August 2009, 08:30 AM
I wished to shed more light on the subject so I mentioned this in the thread:

Namaste,

I didnt want this to turn into a debate. I just wanted to see if people understood the hindu concept which it still seems like they dont. I am sure there has to be some article ill find online to address it and a refutation from a buddhist perspective. Now as far as it not being compatable with Buddha's teaching, I am not necesarrly thinking that, however some of the descriptions of Shunyata suggest the same finding of Hindu Yogis. For example:

I was listening to an audio book for Tibetan Wisdom for living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche and he said:

"If you go an tell like someone from the midwest you go and tell them that buddhist dont believe in God, they believe in emptiness (laughing)"

"This is worst (laughing) you first tell them buddhist dont believe in God and then say buddhist believe in emptiness"

"Thats why you need to explain You say that buddhist dont believe in God, but that does not mean they do not believe in the nature of God, Because the Nature of God is the Nature of truth Sunyata, the same.

But buddhist dont believe in the concept of God, because in many ways no matter how good theconcepts of God does not do justice to the absolute, all the concepts of God does not describe the nature of god.
Shantideva said the Absolute is beyond the mind.
Since God is beyond mind it is beyond concepts, it means empty, free open like the sky
Its not empty like a empty cup of tea, not like this you know what im saying It means free limitless, open, uncompouded, uncreated."

This is what the Hindus are saying. This also goes along with one of the Gathas that Thich Nhat Hanh was taught in his monastery in which you recite as you bathe. You recite "Unborn, Indestructable, beyond time and space, The transmitter and received are one in the Dharmadhatu" This is talking of the nature of reality and also how we are one with all that is because the Transmitter as Thich Nhat hanh explains the transmitter is the parents and the received are the offspring. They are one and the same. Anyways the Hindus talk about God as being Unborn Indestructable, beyond time and Space. He is one with us.

That is what I am trying to say. It makes me wonder if its the same conclusion just worded differently.

with metta
-juan

Spiritualseeker
18 August 2009, 08:32 AM
Please correct me if im wrong

srivijaya
02 October 2009, 08:03 AM
Anyways the Hindus talk about God as being Unborn Indestructable, beyond time and Space. He is one with us.

Hi Juan,
I hope your search is bearing fruit. I think you are asking a question which has many possible answers. I don't think that there is a 'single' approach to the notion of God within Hinduism. I'm a Buddhist with an interest in Shaivism and a little research has revealed that even for this deity there are (broadly speaking) three views.
The first is dualistic, rather like the Christian; ie Shiva is the creator and requires worship. The second is semi-dualistic; acknowledging difference on one level but transcending it on another. The third is monist, which as you know is complete union.

So which version of God should the Buddhist refute?

Then you need to enquire which kind of Buddhist should do the refuting!

The link you gave was to a Theravadan board. Asking about anything "divine" there would be like trying to press oil out of sand. The Theravadan school accept only that which they directly experience within meditation. Anything else is speculation. They are careful not to reify any states they encounter.

Mahayanists (like Tibetan Buddhists for example) have different teachings which may be more in tune with what you seek.

Namaste

nac
31 October 2009, 04:01 PM
I'm a complete beginner and none of this should be taken as authoritative, but here's what I think: Buddhists dislike the concept of God and ultimate Self because we don't see existence as a single dharma or derived from a single dharma in any way, it's rather a seamless web of co-dependently arisen phenomena (subjective, objective and all types in between) interlinked through chains of cause-and-effect. These phenomena are themselves empty of self-nature, but conditioned by all other phenomena, like a dewdrop on a spiderweb reflecting all the other drops clinging to it. This isn't "one web" either, as it's decentralized, everlasting, indiscernible in extent, fractal in complexity, beyond the grasp of cognition, direct observation or conscious control as a whole, therefore it can't be reified into a single existent dharma except maybe in the weakest sense. (Huayan) Any realization of God or D.O. itself arises as a single subjective phenomenon within this complex web. This view of Dependent Arising is the cornerstone of every legitimate Buddhist tradition from Theravada to Tibetan Buddhism. Because of this view, we're neither realists nor fatalists, nor do we believe that existence began from a single phenomenon like in the old Big Bang theory. (views this theory tries to avoid) Even though an ultimate Self cannot be found, Buddha-nature pervades existence like a mental substance smeared across the metaphysical continuum of subjective consciousness. Hence true stability and inner peace can be attained only by practicing awareness, the path of righteousness, caring for our fellow sentient beings, etc.

A Brahma lacking Self is essentially equivalent to the emptiness of blessed mother prajnaparamita. (not voidness!) As we can see, God is unnecessary and completely absent from this picture, since empty phenomena can arise of their own accord, interdependently caused & conditioned by each other. (eg. mind and matter) If someone chooses to see the same state of affairs in a way that includes God, that's up to them, but from the perspective of Buddhism, it's Incomplete View in the Eightfold Path and probably avidya too.

Spiritualseeker
01 November 2009, 02:40 PM
Namaste,


What a wonderful view. It does make sense. I do understand this. I think though the concept of God in Sanatana Dharma is very similar to Dharmakaya of Buddhist. God In sanatana Dharma is formless Reality. It is Ultimate Reality, the Cosmic Intelligence, that which feeds energy to all that exist and yet is not separate. It is all that exist. It is unconditioned, beyond time and space. It seems similar to the Buddhist teachings. As Thich Nhat Hanh recites the poem "Unborn, Indestructable, beyond time and space, the Transmitter and received are all one in the Dharmadhatu"

transmitter in this case though is the parents. The received are the children. They are one through infinite causes and conditions. But the point is speaking of this Reality as Unborn, indestructable, beyond time and space.

What do you think friend?

OM
-juan

srivijaya
02 November 2009, 03:39 AM
It is unconditioned, beyond time and space. It seems similar to the Buddhist teachings.

Hi Juan and nac,
A couple of very astute posts and yes, I think this analysis is correct.

Perhaps we are grappling with a paradox:

If one asserts that god exists, then one is confronted with the impossible task of finding and defining this divinity. Ultimately, there will be nothing to which you can pin this assertion. Like trying to bottle a rainbow.

If one then asserts there to be no divine power at all, then one has not answered the basic fact with which we are all confronted; that of life.

This is why I personally find Buddhism and Shaivism so complementary. A knowledge of Buddhism helps prevent reification within Theism (in fact it makes it redundant). The teachings of Shaivism (for me the ones on Spanda) address the paradox of "becoming".

Whilst this is also dealt with within some Mahayana teachings (Vajrayana, Dzogchen etc.), it is nevertheless not as definitively presented as within the doctrine of Spanda which approaches the issue with a unique and radical clarity.

Namaste

Abominable Snowman
06 November 2009, 07:09 AM
I know this quote is from wiki but consider this...

"While many Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). Most importantly, gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Gods have not attained nirvana, and are still subject to emotions, including jealousy, anger, delusion, sorrow, etc. Thus, since a Buddha shows the way to nirvana, a Buddha is called "the teacher of the gods and humans" (Skt: śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ). According to the Pali Canon the gods have powers to affect only so far as their realm of influence or control allows them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to nirvana than humans and no wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism[6].

The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. Yet, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the futility of these powers[citation needed] and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through discernment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Perhaps it might help, perhaps not. It seems strange that God needs to be taught and isn't all knowing already, after all what makes them Gods?

srivijaya
06 November 2009, 02:56 PM
It seems strange that God needs to be taught and isn't all knowing already, after all what makes them Gods?

I think we're talking about two different things here. There is a distinction between the definition of a god as 'a limited samsaric being' and the definition of 'god' as referring to the ultimate or supreme state.

The highest deity Buddha encounters is Brahma. Within Hinduism there is also Brahman (the absolute supreme). The only question is to what extent does one personalise and reify this supreme state.

Namaste

Abominable Snowman
06 November 2009, 05:59 PM
Namaste.


I think we're talking about two different things here. There is a distinction between the definition of a god as 'a limited samsaric being' and the definition of 'god' as referring to the ultimate or supreme state.

Indeed, what I am saying is I don't really get the Buddhist conception of God. I don't see how God could have limitations and even be in samsara to begin with but I guess perhaps that's where the distinction and divide lie, so to speak. I have always consider the notion of deity to imply in it's definition something beyond all limitation and something that is; no begining, no end, just is and always will be. From my understanding it would appear that the Buddhist conception of God is humanizing deity, implying limitations that would only exist amongst humans and other sentient beings.

FlipAsso
06 November 2009, 06:40 PM
It was after a similar post on a buddhist forum that I decided I was no buddhist.
I identify myself a lot more with the Advaitin teachings, than those of buddhism.
For quite a while i tried to interpret buddhist teachings to have an "underlying" God, but for most buddhists there seems to be none.
Although, as mentioned there are a lot of buddhist concepts that can be confused with a concept of God. These have been illustrated here on this thread.
The Dharma-kaya, the Buddha nature, etc.
For me these concepts are the same as Brahman, in Advaita.
But most buddhists, especially western theravada buddhists refuse to call it God. This is probably due to the christian, dual, conception of god, with powers and rules, and a temper, a white bearded old man that lives in the clouds, you've seen the video... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o) - don't take this the wrong way, it's just a funny video.
The gods buddhists believe in are the devas, which are still beings, with tempers, etc. and they could be called angels or demons, or archangels in a christian context.
I think buddhists have a very good point of view and method
From my POV the buddha made a clash against the religion of the time, and teached according to his context. If the buddha had lived a few years later, in an age that weren't so marked with theism, he probably taught more in a Theistic way.

Sorry for my tone..
If we practice the dharma, and listen to the guru within, we'll all get to the same place, call it Nibbana, Moksha, Turya, Heaven, etc..

FlipAsso
14 November 2009, 06:19 PM
I found this talk by a buddhist monk.. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html

It kind of explains the buddhist view on the God-issue. And it also gives an explaination why the Buddha didn't speak of God.
This monk has a very moderate POV that I like.

DavidC
14 November 2009, 07:06 PM
I asked a similar question in Sanatana Dharma - Philosophy -ātman & individual soul (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3868).

What some 'Buddhists' told me lately is Buddha-nature does not mean Divinity because each Buddha has its own nature.

So, Green Tara has the nature of being green, but that does not mean 'green is Divinity.'

They admitted that there is an story about a being created the universe, but they say the being was deluded. This is sort of like the Gnostic idea that the demiurge is evil.

I think any limited or non-eternal being can be described as having some evil nature, but that does not mean an impersonal god is evil or even that there is not some rational explanation. I guess I would prefer an idea in between that of such Gnostics/Buddhists and between that of the idea that there is some limited Divinity that is perfectly good.

I guess Buddhists can take the viewpoints of polytheism, pan(en)theism (of akasha or Adi-Buddha,) autotheism (one's Buddha-nature,) but not (kat)henotheism. Because, what is the 'greatest' Divinity? Who knows if the creator of the universe was deluded or not or if Adi-Buddha is or is not the creator? Maybe the idea is Adi-Buddha is not the creator, but just the oldest Buddha still known, because if the demiurge was deluded it cannot be Adi-Buddha. But, then the question is whether the so-called demiurge was really it. In a way this Buddhism is sort of like the Greek Cynics. Independent arising still means there has to be order and that things can be explained, but maybe Buddhists do not think so. Maybe Buddhists think the three or four marks of existence only mean there is a threefold or fourfold existence but anything else is not agreed on in Buddhism. It also seems those 'marks' are merely something accepted by a majority.

One Rinpoche whose lectures I go to said that something like 'some people call "spirit" "atma."' It means the same as consciousness but it is hard enough for most people to become fully aware of their mental consciousness. Then how can they claim to know there is nothing beyond that? Probably there is infinity beyond it. I would trust such Rinpoches more than the average Buddhist who has not spent months of disciplined life doing much meditation. They probably have not seen the advanced results of meditation and are agnostic--not gnostic about 'themselves'--and do not really know what they are talking about. One can call consciousness/spirit/intelligence non-self and even say that 'spirit dissolves into void' and I think that is compatible with Sanatana Dharma, but it is gnostic. These 'Buddhists' reject other ideas of void nature such as 'Paramatma' 'Parabrahm' or 'Absolute' or 'causeless cause,' so I do not think they have done much meditation and they have some dogmatic idea about the void. They are attached to their consciousness and their ideas about void. They cannot accept 'void = everything' and 'void is (not) Parabrahm because it is most (un)explainable' and those are relative statements, and that when they are realized they will see the truth beyond such statements, because they are attached to their ideas about the three or four marks and Buddha-nature.

Maybe if they were not so dogmatic about that but still saw the truth in Buddhism they would know what they are talking about. Nagarjuna got beyond tetralemma. Mahavira (the final Jain Tirthankara) got beyond any such idea. Of course, Mahavira was not Buddhist, so to Buddhists he must be wrong. However it is said Jain Dharma was a main influence on Buddha Dharma.

devotee
14 November 2009, 08:48 PM
Namaste FlipAsso,

My interaction with some Buddhists gives me an impression that the Westerner Buddhists go too far to prove that they have a completely different ideology as compared to Advaita Vedanta & sometimes it just goes to the point of absurdity. They tend to explain Buddha's teachings which, perhaps, was never in Buddha's mind. And that is more so in Theravada Buddhism. They even refuse to accept that Buddha was a born Hindu. They all try to attain enlightenment but refuse to accept any idea of "self" ... even illusive self. When Buddha said that there is no "self", he meant the lower self, the individual self which is in line with Advaita. Buddhism also fails to recognise the first three states of SELF & only talks about the fourth i.e. the Turiya.

In my opinion, based on my understanding of Buddhism, there is not much difference among these three philophies ... Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism & Jainism ... though the terms used are slightly different.

OM

FlipAsso
15 November 2009, 10:27 AM
Agreed..
Buddhism has a view I apreciate though..
They say intelectual speculation about whether or not there is a God who created this world, whether this God is illuded or not, or whether there is something we can call a self is not conductive to enlightenment.
One the other hand,only practice is.
And I see no incompatabilities with buddhist and hindu practices. In fact I found a translation of the Yoga Sutra's of Patanjali which is very much similar with the eightfold path of buddhism.
The 5 yamas of patanjali are very similar to the 5 percepts of lay Buddhists.
The meditation practices are similar, and one important aspect of buddhism, the Brahma Viharas (metta, karuna, upekka and mudita) also appears in the Yoga Sutras.
The buddhist meditation practice of Vipassana is also very similar to the discriminational practice of Neti-Neti, in Advaita.
I myself, find support in some ways in the Hindu tradition, and in other ways (namely meditation) in the Buddhist.

As once said in this forum, the horse and the one who rides it are but the same being.. - So when one reaches enlightenment, one will reach the same "place" whether one calls it heaven, turyia, nibbana, the promissed land, etc..

sunyata07
17 November 2009, 02:31 PM
Namaste FlipAsso,


But most buddhists, especially western theravada buddhists refuse to call it God. This is probably due to the christian, dual, conception of god, with powers and rules, and a temper, a white bearded old man that lives in the clouds, you've seen the video... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o) - don't take this the wrong way, it's just a funny video.

I agree with you and Devotee on these points. I don't personally know any Theravada Buddhists or even Western Buddhists, but I do agree that they are very vehement about the no God concept. I understand its role in Buddhism throughout, as it largely focuses on non-attachment, not even to the Divine as an entity, but as Devotee has remarked they do take it to the point of absurdity. They are, in a sense, attached to unattachment. ;) A true follower of Buddha will not argue for there being a God, but neither will he refute its existence. It is why Buddhism has always been called the Middle Way.

But I do appreciate Buddhism deeply. Its tenets are more or less the same as in Hinduism: ahimsa, speaking truthfully, correct livelihood, non-attachment, etc. On days when I don't feel inclined to pray to God as a person, or Saguna Brahman, I take a very Buddhist approach to the world and simply follow the rules of good living for myself and for all things with no concern for personal Godhead. Whereas before I might once have made a distinction between having a personal and agnostic relationship with the concept of God, I see now they are the same path, but just with different approaches.

Like you have said, FlipAsso, whatever happens, we are all heading for the same destination, whatever the name we give the road we are travelling on.

shian
17 November 2009, 08:43 PM
God only a word who many peoples have different opinion
how can peoples have one opinion about God ?
Even same religion , same sect , ever under same Guru is have different opinion

devotee
17 November 2009, 10:06 PM
On days when I don't feel inclined to pray to God as a person, or Saguna Brahman, I take a very Buddhist approach to the world and simply follow the rules of good living for myself and for all things with no concern for personal Godhead.

Good one ! :) Worshipping personal Godhead is one of the ways/vehicles that takes us towards the True Path through fruits of good actions & grace of God but it needs deep contemplation on Advaita teachings (that includes Buddha's teachings too) & deep meditation to actually realise the Ultimate Reality.

OM

nac
28 January 2010, 02:40 AM
Er... like I said, Buddha-nature is spread, sky-like, all over the web of DO. This Buddha-nature is sometimes said to consist of three enlightening bodies or kayas: the dharma-kaya, the source giving rise to the dharma, the nirmana-kaya, and the other one, whatever it's called. Sometimes it's also said to consist of five enlightening bodies, depending on the way one chooses to analyze it. If it is asserted that the dharma arises at every point, then we can either claim that all things arise from a single monad like Brahma, or we may also speculate that the dharma is caused due to natural law arising as an interconnected sky-like network spread across time and space, hence taking different forms at each point. If so, then it defies conceptual categorization such as one vs. many, differentiated vs. undifferentiated, etc as a whole. Buddhism takes the latter approach.

mcshantihank
06 June 2010, 02:02 PM
according to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=god&searchmode=none :

O.E. god "supreme being, deity," from P.Gmc. *guthan (cf. Du. god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guğ, Goth. guş), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cf. Skt. huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Gk. khein "to pour," khoane "funnel" and khymos "juice;" also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. Cf. also Zeus (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus). Not related to good (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good). Originally neut. in Gmc., the gender shifted to masc. after the coming of Christianity. O.E. god was probably closer in sense to L. numen. A better word to translate deus might have been P.Gmc. *ansuz, but this was only used of the highest deities in the Gmc. religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian God. It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.
I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often. ... If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. [Voltaire] God bless you after someone sneezes is credited to St. Gregory the Great, but the pagan Romans (Absit omen) and Greeks had similar customs.

ScottMalaysia
07 June 2010, 09:54 AM
"Pure" Buddhists may not believe in a God. But in many areas, Buddhism has absorbed elements of the local culture, including gods. This is especially true with Chinese and Thai Buddhists. Chinese Buddhists have made the Bodhisattva Avalotikeshvara into Guan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy, a mother Goddess figure to whom many Chinese pray. In Thailand, whose state religion is Buddhism, there are shrines to a number of local Gods, to whom people make offerings. Hindu Gods are also found in some of these shrines.

Here is one in Bangkok with a statue of Lord Shiva.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6EGjAQ-bw7o/SuXU29upUkI/AAAAAAAAB5o/4VH30M81LSo/s800/Bangkok%20041.jpg

So "pure" Buddhists may not believe in God, but many Buddhists make prayers and supplications to a variety of different Gods.

Avazjan
07 June 2010, 10:59 AM
"Pure" Buddhists may not believe in a God. But in many areas, Buddhism has absorbed elements of the local culture, including gods. This is especially true with Chinese and Thai Buddhists. Chinese Buddhists have made the Bodhisattva Avalotikeshvara into Guan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy, a mother Goddess figure to whom many Chinese pray. In Thailand, whose state religion is Buddhism, there are shrines to a number of local Gods, to whom people make offerings. Hindu Gods are also found in some of these shrines.

Here is one in Bangkok with a statue of Lord Shiva.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6EGjAQ-bw7o/SuXU29upUkI/AAAAAAAAB5o/4VH30M81LSo/s800/Bangkok%20041.jpg

So "pure" Buddhists may not believe in God, but many Buddhists make prayers and supplications to a variety of different Gods.


Namaste. "Pure" buddhists, as you have defined the term, do believe in god. Some of them. The Vajrayana specifically mandates deity worship. The vajrayana is a subset of mahayana, which is the counterpart of hinayana or therevada. About 6% of buddhists are vajrayana buddhists.

The deities used in Vajrayana are mostly imported Hindu ones, and likened to tattvas.

Sahasranama
07 June 2010, 01:07 PM
Buddhism has become very popular, but it's only useful to give some peace of mind to people who are not fortunate enough to be part of Sanatana Dharma. We don't have the need to debate with other people or to manipulate them in conversion, because we know that if people don't naturally feel attraction towards Hinduism, they are undeserving to be part of it. It's better for them to become Buddhists, Taoists or New Age followers. Our shastras do not ask us to be violent against disbelievers, like the koran and the bible does, but it asks us not to enclose the secrets of our dharma to people outside of our faith. There is a certain level of elitism in Hinduism that we need to respect. It would be wrong to quote verses from the upanishads and the bhagavad gita in debate with buddhists. They do not have the same śradhā and therefore do not have the adhikāra to hear about our scriptures.

Kumar_Das
07 June 2010, 03:56 PM
Buddhism has become very popular, but it's only useful to give some peace of mind to people who are not fortunate enough to be part of Sanatana Dharma. We don't have the need to debate with other people or to manipulate them in conversion, because we know that if people don't naturally feel attraction towards Hinduism, they are undeserving to be part of it. It's better for them to become Buddhists, Taoists or New Age followers. Our shastras do not ask us to be violent against disbelievers, like the koran and the bible does, but it asks us not to enclose the secrets of our dharma to people outside of our faith. There is a certain level of elitism in Hinduism that we need to respect. It would be wrong to quote verses from the upanishads and the bhagavad gita in debate with buddhists. They do not have the same śradhā and therefore do not have the adhikāra to hear about our scriptures.

I agree with you 100%.

Our differences

Also arguing with the a buddhist about God is like trying to raise a man who is in a storey beneath you while you are above him, and your floor is his ceiling which is completely sealed.

You cannot raise him to where you stand because he lives in a void devoid of God.

Nastikas residence is a reality based upon a lack of belief in God.

When you debate with them, it destroys what he believes.

Your reality is his delusion. His reality is your delusion.

Just one point. We believe that God is the Cause of all causes. Whatever symptoms that manifest in this universe is operated by God.

They on the otherhand completely disbelief in this.

So what's the point in arguing?

Our similarities

We both believe in "live and let live".

We both have a sympathetic view of everyone else even if they might be harsh on us. And we both believe in Dharma.

A follower of Sanatana Dharma may study and take certain aspects of Buddhism while maintaining his Theistic position. An enlightenment of the Self. Then proceed on further to acquire enlightenment of the Transcendent Reality.

I dont see anything inherently wrong or detrimental about Buddhism.

shian
14 June 2010, 03:27 AM
"Pure" Buddhists may not believe in a God.


Greetings Scot

Buddhist have many sect
do you know, Theravadin will said they is pure
Mahayana will said they is pure
Tantrayana / Vajrayana will said they is pure!

so your term of pure is relative.

Vajrayana and Mahayana absolutely have doctrin of Baghavan or Vairocana or Samanthabadra Tathagata.

why Vajrayana will said they is pure ?
Because they believe what Buddha teach in Vajrayana is not teach to Theravadin, because Buddha tech different peoples.
Vajrayana believe , Buddha was teach Theravadin (who absolutely reject to respect or bow to god and goddess and then claimed they is not have personal God form, they only have Nirguna aspect , that is Nirvana)
Vajrayana believe Theravadin people will cannot understand about high teaching about Vajrayana , so Buddha has teaching Three kind of Yanas.

Hindu also have this kind of matter,
like XXX sect believe they is have pure teaching
like XXX sect believe other sect is lower teaching for lower intelect of peoples etc.



But in many areas, Buddhism has absorbed elements of the local culture, including gods. This is especially true with Chinese and Thai Buddhists. Chinese Buddhists have made the Bodhisattva Avalotikeshvara into Guan Yin, the Goddess of Mercy, a mother Goddess figure to whom many Chinese pray.

Female Guanyin is not made by Chinesse.
Female Guanyin absolutely a one form of Avalokitesvara as Tara Avalokitesvara and Pandaravasini Avalokitesvara, and this teaching is from India.

Why Guanyin's face like chinesse people ?
Scott, not only Guanyin, even Sakyamuni Buddha is become chinesse in face.

Hindu also have this , like Brahma - Vishnu and Shiva, in Indonesia become like Indonesian peoples.


In Thailand, whose state religion is Buddhism, there are shrines to a number of local Gods, to whom people make offerings. Hindu Gods are also found in some of these shrines.

We see in Buddhist Tripitaka,
all of god and goddess is absolutely from Hindu.
Even Theravadin also believe the existence of Brahma etc...




So "pure" Buddhists may not believe in God, but many Buddhists make prayers and supplications to a variety of different Gods.

Scott what your wrote here will make many Buddhist fell slandered.

I have hear my Many ISKCON friends talk about Buddhist, they talk about non sens, why they said Buddhists goal is emptiness, zero.

i dont know where they get this theroy,
even Theravadin is dont want attain a NIHILISM.

shian
14 June 2010, 10:45 PM
I think this "God" term is not aprropriate.

Many peoples see word "God" is atribute for Jehovah, Allah, or Jesus

so the wrod GOd kan make many missunderstanding here

you talk wich God ?

because Christian - Moslem - Jhewish have different theory for this word "god"

even Hinduism , different sect have different theory about GOD

we see between ISKCON and Shaivaism , is very different,
one see Nirguna Brahman as higest god
one see personal god is highest
etc

so many understanding can happen from this word of "God"

Buddhist Vajrayana called The Truth or The supreme consciousness or the power behind all gods who help to creation to pralaya process
is Buddha
is Baghavan
is Baghavati
is Dharmakaya
etc

so ?

Buddhist is not believe in creation is mean :
The creation like abrahamic religion who begining from one point.

but Buddhist Vajrayana Tripitakas was call Brahma as a creator god , but not from one point. The term creation is just like our parents, they have cerate us, but they also cerated by others. Or created by nidanas

as far i know,
many Hindu and Buddhism "sect" is believe the ceration - preserve - and pralaya of this universe and Trisahasra Mahasahasra Lokadhatu and infinite universe

is beyond alfa and omega

that is not from one point

that is from the power of Maya

you cannot know the "first" point because this is Maya.

Buddhist (mahayana and Vajrayana) Tripitakas believe many gods who controlled this universe
like, Brahma, Varuna, Vayu , agni, etc
but have Buddha behind them
(this is just like many sect of Hinduism believe, if they is shakta, they believe Shakti is behind Brahma- Vishnu etc. If they is Ganapataya, so believe Ganesh is behind all)


i have even discuss with Hinayana / Theravadin, have one people said Avalokitesvara who have male and female form is god of transexual (this person was slander Mahayana and Vajrayana)
this person dont want entering buddhist temple who have Aavalokitesvara statue or other Bodhisattva s statue even this temple is entered by Theravadin monks.

so this kind of problem is also happened in Buddhist.

The fanatic blind Hinayana

they even cannot understand why a Deity have male and female forms.

so how come you can teach them more about higher teachings ??????