|
*slotting*
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Couve Wa
Posts: 4,304
|
Quote:
|
Does buddhism believe in God or other beliefs?
|
No, there is no God in Buddhism. People often misunderstand consider Buddhsim as Atheist, but actually Buddhism is a nontheist which mean a religion without a or any of God.
But one of our scripture does stats something about the "creation".
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Dhammapada, 1.1-3
That stats that our thoughts create the world. Just like my signature below said "What you think, you become".
The Wikipedia does have interesting article about God in Buddhism.
Quote:
God in Buddhism
Buddhism is sometimes regarded as a religion (or a spiritual philosophy) without an Absolute Creator God (who created the universe ex nihilo and to whom worship and adoration are due). This separation between a creator and creation are absent in Buddhism as every being's true essence resides in the timeless Dharma. With constant practice of meditation and moral perfections beings cause the dispelling of ignorance by which all beings become inheritors of the Dharma. [1] In later Nikaya Buddhism, dispute arise as to the ontological aspect of Dhamma and Buddha because enternal Dhamma stating that reality is non eternal, seems to contradict itself. The theological solution(s) to this contradiction form the major portion of Mahayana theology. Consequently, Mahayana Buddhism as opposed to Theravada Buddhism is much closer to Abrahamic religion, and various European scholars who studied it commented on its similarity. In Theravada Buddhism, theism is delegated to Brahman, the supreme Deva, and hence its system is explicitly relegated to be insufficient/irrelevant or even inferior to attainment of unbinding.
Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Another difference is that all have the opportunity to strive for Buddhahood, whereas in Abrahamic version of theism, it is impossible to strive to become the God due to a strict separation between man and God. Although it should be mentioned that the doctrine of Theosis has played an important role in Christian thought. However, there are number of theistic variations of Hinduism where a man can strive to become the Godhead. Similarly, in some major traditions of Mahayana Buddhism (the Tathagatagarbha and Pure Land streams of teaching) there is the notion of the Buddha as the omnipresent, omniscient, liberative essence of Reality, and the idea of the Buddhas as generators of vast "pure lands", "Buddha lands" or Buddha Paradises, in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.
Huston Smith in his popular comparative religions book, "The World Religions", describes Buddhism as being psychological and not metaphysical like theistic religions. Unlike theistic religions which begin with notions of God and the creation of the universe, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Buddhists do not normally speak in terms of an Absolute Creator God.
In Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism, however, there is far less reticence on the part of the Buddha (or Buddhas) to discourse upon metaphysical matters than is found in the Pali scriptures.
Some tantras paint a portrait of the Buddha on a cosmological scale and in cosmogonic terms as the emanator of all beings and all universes (see, for instance, the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra). This primordial Buddha is viewed by the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism as absolute, eternal, omnipresent, supreme Knowingness/Awareness (jnana) beyond the limitations of ordinary consciousness.
The Tibetan adept, Dolpopa, writes: "It is absolute, never relative. It is the true nature ... It is gnosis, never consciousness. It is pure, never impure. It is a sublime Self, never a nothingness ... It is Buddha, never a sentient being." (The Buddha from Dolpo, Cyrus Stearns, SUNY, New York, 1999, pp. 149-150). The Tibetan Sangpa Kagyu school of Buddhism speaks of the Ultimate Reality as pure, spotless, changeless Mind that is present in all things, all times and in all beings and which can never die. Kalu Rinpoche elucidates: " ... pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal." (Luminous Mind, Kalu Rinpoche, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1997, pp.20-21). Other Mahayana Buddhists, however, are averse to the idea of an Absolute and speak only of a chain of ongoing causes and conditions as the ultimate Truth (this is especially true of the Gelukpa School of Tibetan Buddhism).
In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices and struggles for perfect enlightenment (one can see this in the Jatakas) and as teachers who are embodiments of the "Dhamma" or "Law". In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human spirit and humanity's ability for jnana or perfect gnosis is celebrated in the concept of human saints known as Arahants which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect gnosis to obtain Nirvana.[2]
Buddhism is a way of life which does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but depends upon the practice of the Eightfold Path which includes contemplation. In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however, veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgment to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All unenlightened supernatural beings are caught in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth.
First Cause in Buddhism - Ignorance
What is deemed as 'the creation of the universe by an all-powerful creator deity' in many other religions is not accepted by any school of Buddhism.
Avidya, or 'ignorance', is the closest thing in Buddhism to the First Cause of creation, but is not attributed to any God or Buddha. The Gautama Buddha explained the origin of the world of samsara in this way, but refused to answer questions about the origin of the unconditioned ‘things as they are‘ in the Pali Canon.
The Uncreated in Buddhism
According to Gautama Buddha the unborn is what allows there to be nirvana, an escape from the cycle of samsara.
Thought as the Creator
In Buddhism, there is no Supreme Being named that is the creator of all. However Gautama Buddha does state that our thoughts make the world. The Buddha considers thought as the creator of the world.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
—Dhammapada, 1.1-3
God in early Buddhism
In early Buddhism, in the Titha Sutta AN 3.61, Buddha clearly states that "reliance and belief" in creation by a supreme being leads to lack of effort and inaction:
Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that...
'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,'
I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"'
Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'
Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.'
When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.
The Buddha of the Pāli suttas (discourses) dismisses as “foolish talk”, as “ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing” (Digha-Nikaya No. 13, Tevijja Sutta) the notion that Brahmins (the priestly caste), who according to the Buddha have not in fact seen Brahma face to face, can teach others how to achieve union with what they themselves have never beheld. This is not a denial of the existence of Brahma, however, but merely intended (by the Buddha) to indicate the folly of those religious teachers who would lead others to what they themselves do not personally know.
Yet Brahma himself (see Brahmajala Sutta), for example, while not denied by the Buddha, is in no way viewed by him as a sovereign, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). Instead of belief in such a would-be Creator God as Brahma (a benign heavenly being who is in reality not yet free from self-delusion and the processes of rebirth), the wise are encouraged to practise the Dharma (spiritual truth) of the Buddha, in which right vision, right thinking, right speaking, right acting, right living, right effort, right attentive awareness, and right meditative absorption are paramount and are said to bring spiritual Liberation. The “God idea” forms no part of Theravada Buddhism's doctrine of release from suffering - although some see in the “deathless realm of Nirvana” a hint of an impersonal, transcendental Absolute.
Sir Charles Eliot in his Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch correctly describes God in early Buddhism as:
The attitude of early Buddhism to the spirit world—the hosts of deities and demons who people this and other spheres. Their existence is assumed, but the truths of religion are not dependent on them, and attempts to use their influence by sacrifices and oracles are deprecated as vulgar practices similar to juggling.
The systems of philosophy then in vogue were mostly not theistic, and, strange as the words may sound, religion had little to do with the gods. If this be thought to rest on a mistranslation, it is certainly true that the dhamma had very little to do with devas.
Often as the Devas figure in early Buddhist stories, the significance of their appearance nearly always lies in their relations with the Buddha or his disciples. Of mere mythology, such as the dealings of Brahma and Indra with other gods, there is little. In fact the gods, though freely invoked as accessories, are not taken seriously, and there are some extremely curious passages in which Gotama seems to laugh at them, much as the sceptics of the 18th century laughed at Jehovah. Thus in the [Pali Canon] Kevaddha Sutta he relates how a monk who was puzzled by a metaphysical problem applied to various gods and finally accosted Brahma himself in the presence of all his retinue. After hearing the question, which was “Where do the elements cease and leave no trace behind?” Brahma replies, “I am the Great Brahma, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be.” “But,” said the monk, “I did not ask you, friend, whether you were indeed all you now say, but I ask you where the four elements cease and leave no trace.” Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him aside and said, “These gods think I know and understand everything. Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha.”
Even more curiously ironic is the account given of the origin of Brahma. There comes a time when this world system passes away and then certain beings are reborn in the “World of Radiance” and remain there a long time. Sooner or later, the world system begins to evolve again and the palace of Brahma appears, but it is empty. Then some being whose time is up falls from the “World of Radiance” and comes to life in the palace and remains there alone. At last he wishes for company, and it so happens that other beings whose time is up fall from the “World of Radiance” and join him. And the first being thinks that he is Great Brahma, the Creator, because when he felt lonely and wished for companions other beings appeared. And the other beings accept this view. And at last one of Brahma’s retinue falls from that state and is born in the human world and, if he can remember his previous birth, he reflects that he is transitory but that Brahma still remains and from this he draws the erroneous conclusion that Brahma is eternal.
He who dared to represent Brahma (for which name we might substitute Allah or Jehovah) as a pompous deluded individual worried by the difficulty of keeping up his position had more than the usual share of scepticism and irony. The compilers of such discourses regarded the gods as mere embellishments, as gargoyles and quaint figures in the cathedral porch, not as saints above the altar. [3]
Mahayana and tantric mystical doctrines
The idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (“body of Truth”) of the Buddha himself, is promulgated in a number of Mahayana sutras and in various tantras as well. Occasionally, this principle is presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.
In the Mahavairocana Sutra, the essence of Vairocana is said to be symbolised by the letter “A”, which is claimed to reside in the hearts of all beings and of which Buddha Vairocana declares, in (The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, p. 331), “[the mystic letter ‘A’] is placed in the heart location:
it is Lord and Master of all,
and it pervades entirely
all the animate and inanimate.
‘A’ is the highest life-energy …
The text refers to Vairocana Buddha as the "Bhagavat" ("Blessed One," a term traditionally linked in Indian discourse with "the Divine"], "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana” (p. 355).
The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:
He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.
Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as “Samantabhadra Buddha”) declares of itself:
I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.
—The Supreme Source, p. 157
Another important primordial Buddha is Ādibuddha (Adi-Buddha), who figures prominently in the Kalachakra tantra. Ādibuddha is believed to be a primordial, self-existent, self-created Buddha who is the personification of Shunyata or emptiness [freedom from confining substance or conceptual graspability) enshrining the infinitely Knowing Mind of Great Compassion; all phenomena lack true separate existence yet still appear, and their basis is the undifferentiated and inconceivable Mind of Buddha (empty of all defects and ignorance). However, all these seemingly God-like figures, i.e Samantabhadra, Vairochana, Vajradhara etc. are traditionally understood to be personifications of emptiness-and-compassion --the ungraspable, limitless, invisible, inconceivable, unimpeded benevolent Reality of Buddha-Mind--the true nature of all phenomena. Some Buddhists see the above Samantabhadra Buddha quote as radically subjective psychology, while still others will insist that the words mean what they say and do communicate the sense of an actual sustaining Buddhic force or spiritual essence behind and within all phenomena.
|
Contine to next post.
__________________
In memory of Ruby, see my picture album for more detail.
|
02-27-2008, 03:46 AM
Sponsored Links
Coastal summer....
Linear Mode
