Discussion about God with Buddhist

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

I am currently discussing the concept of God in hinduism with buddhist on this thread http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic...=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]

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]

Please correct me if im wrong

[srivijaya]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.