Talk:God in Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikiproject_Buddhism This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article God in Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
God in Buddhism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →

Discussion, heated or otherwise, about the "God in Buddhism" page goes here...

Contents

[edit] Define Term

It seems to me that what this article strongly needs is to explore right away what is meant by "God." If the most relevant term is not defined, then the article will continue to be somewhat incoherent. Sylvain1972 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"God," with a capital G, is an omnipotent being who possesses personality. The "G" is capitalized because it is the proper name of a real or imagined person.

An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception … anthropomorphism is in every way an essential characteristic of theism.

– Schopenhauer,Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," §13

Lestrade 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] God in Buddhism debate

"What, of course, is absolute nonsense. Even within the Pali Canon the Buddha declares that the whole world, its foundation and cessation, is found and accomplished within this human body. The tantras, as elaborate buddhist teachings, specify and explain these teachings, as it is the mind that is the foundation of the world. There is no world without mind. So, liberation can only be achieved by transcending the world in one's own mind. Texts that are clearly influenced by hinduist ideas, should therefore be read carefully!

A creator god is absolutely denied in all today existing buddhist doctrines. If an absolute creator god would exist, the attainment of liberation would be impossible as the will of such a god could not be undone. There would be no way out of such a creation."

The above passage was added at the end of this article which does not seem to represent a NPOV -- it seems more appropriate to shift it to this discussion page. Additionally, the writer does not seem to have read the various caveats concerning the Buddhist views on a creator God.--Stephen Hodge 18:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Thank you, Unnamed Contributor, for your stimulating comments at the end of my "God in Buddhism" entry.

// I am very sorry, that I have messed up *your* "God in Buddhism" entry. I thought Wikipedia is public - sorry!

As you might expect, I don’t quite share all your views. I think they should be placed on this Discussion page rather than appended to the main article, as they do not even attempt to be balanced in tone or content.

// I am a studied and practicing 'tantric' buddhist (tibetan) and therefore I know that the idea of an absolute creator god is strongly denied in Buddhism, because of the given reasons. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia should be about facts and not about some peoples believes. You are free to believe what you like, but don't claim that your personnel opinion represents a valid buddhist philosophical view! Your uncritical citations of certain passages of buddhist tantras shows that you have not studied tantric doctrines! If you would have, you would know that tantric texts need interpretation.

I would be grateful if you could either move your remarks to this Discussion Page or re-write them to make them more suitable for the main entry. Thanks! Let me make a few comments now about what you have written:

1) You claim that what I have written on the link between Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism and panentheism etc. “is absolute nonsense”. This is an opinion which you are entitled to, of course; but I find it disappointingly contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to use such rather intemperate and intolerant language in the context of a public discussion of Buddhist philosophy.

// Buddhism is not soft or weak concerning facts! Please, distinguish facts from your 'believes'.

2) You speak of “even within the Pali Canon”: the whole point of the Mahayana and particularly the Tantras is that they go beyond the basic teachings enshrined in the Pali Canon or agamas; they purport to reveal dimensions of Reality which had only been hinted at in the earlier agamas.

// ??? Do you claim now that the Pali Canon is not valid? The tantras are more elaborate than the Pali Canon in certain aspects, but they do not invalidate the principal teachings, they only have different interpretations than other schools of Buddhism. Especially beginners should not neglect the 'hinayana' teachings (what is part of the Bodhisattva Vow, not to neglect them!) as they describe the 'outline' of this great doctrine.

3) You and I might actually agree on the idea that mind is the basis of all, from key Buddhist perspectives; the difference between us, I suspect, would be on the question of which mind we are speaking of here: whereas you perhaps see mind in this area of Buddhism as referring to the ordinary mind of each unawakened being (with nothing numinous or noumenal implied beyond that), I would understand the teachings on the pure, radiant stainless mind to refer to the Buddha-Mind or Principle of Bodhi, void of all the moral and perceptual contaminants that make of us “unawakened” rather than “awakened” beings. This ultimate Buddhic Mind - which appears in various modalities in the Mahayana sutras and Tantras under a variety of images (e.g. Buddha-dhatu, Tathagatagarbha, Nirvana, Bodhi, Alaya …) - can be seen as a universally present, intelligent support or ground of all things (all "dharmas"), and as such could be viewed as a form of Godhead, if one defines Godhead as uncreated, deathless, omniscient and omnipresent Ultimate Reality. I realise, though, that many Buddhists feel uneasy with such an understanding of the Mahayana Dharma - but that is another matter, of course.

// you were citing certain passages from tantric texts that appear to describe an absolute creator god - really they describe, in tantric hidden terminology - the mind! The mind, as it is, *is* enlighted according to the third turning of the wheel. This is a fact of this doctrine and has nothing to do with my opinion. It also does not mean a 'personal' mind, what is an unenlighted mind blinded by the ignorance of a 'self' or 'inherent existence'. But this unenlighted mind is part of the true nature, otherwise there wouldn't be delusion. Buddhist students always have to guard themselves not to fall into one of the extremes of eternalism or nihilism!

4) You speak of “texts that are clearly influenced by hinduist ideas”. It is actually not at all certain that these texts (e.g. the Nirvana Sutra, and the various Tantras) were influenced by Hinduism; in fact, it is quite possible that it was Buddhism which influenced “Hinduism” in some of these areas. Certainly the Nirvana Sutra and the All-Creating King Tantra do not avowedly pledge any allegiance whatsoever to Brahmanist or Hindu notions (indeed, in the Nirvana Sutra, the teachings of the tirthikas – the heterodox religious sects – are strongly inveighed against). It is true, though, that there appear to be shared imageries and some overlap of meditative experience as between some of the Buddhist scriptures and a number of texts from “Hinduism”. The degree of "influence" one way or the other, however, is extremely difficult to prove.

// Sorry, I meant texts influenced by todays hinduist views interpreting buddhist tantric texts in a hinduist way. Indeed, modern Hinduism was greatly influenced by the Buddha. (see 'Frauwallner')

5) Such texts as you label “Hindu-influenced” “should be read very carefully”, you say. I quite agree with you! And that is why I have spent the last 20 years of my life doing just that!

// My congratulations! So, I hope you know now, that if you want to study tantric texts you need to share the living tradition of such texts. There are good reasons why they are secret.

6) “A creator God is absolutely denied in all today’s existing Buddhist doctrines”, you say. Well, although I think most Buddhists would probably agree with you, it depends what you mean precisely by a “creator God” (certainly the Buddhas do create or emanate all kinds of worlds, mind-endowed forms and creatures, etc. in the sphere of their Buddha-Paradises and in the context of other miracles). But actually, in my article on “God in Buddhism”, I was not necessarily arguing that there is a strong notion of a “Creator God” in Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism - although it seems to me that the All-Creating King Tantra (note its very title!) comes very close to the idea of a sole Creative Universal Emanating Mind; no, rather I was trying to point out that certain Mahayana/Tantric Buddhist scriptures do express the idea of an eternal, blissful, knowing, benevolent, sovereign Reality which underlies all phenomena and transcends all temporalities and into which the Bodhisattva enters at the moment of full Awakening, to become “Buddha” or “Tathagata”. It seems to me not unreasonable to apply a broad definition of “God” to this timeless and deathless supra-skandhaic Reality. Another term for it within Buddhism is “Adibuddha” - the primordial Buddha.

// That's why I wrote 'absolute' creator god. Buddhism does not deny 'creators' or 'gods'. Hey, we human beings are creators, aren't we? In the Pali Canon there are some suttas describing how the Buddha tames Brahma gods, who think they are the creators of the universe. There it is explained why they think that (and why it is wrong) and the Buddha tames them by showing that he can *create* conditions that they cannot undo, due to his diamond-like powers.

7) You write that “if an absolute Creator God existed, the attainment of Liberation would be impossible”. I don’t think that this necessarily follows. If such a God were Absolute (absolute power, absolute knowledge, etc.), it could easily arrange for beings to attain Liberation from suffering (which is what is usually meant by liberation within Buddhist discourse). Such a God could do anything it wished - bring about any outcome, including that of its creatures’ eventual Liberation from all pain. Why not? But in fact, I have not been arguing for that kind of very Christian, anthropomorphic vision of God. My main concern in this Wiki entry was to show that there are strands of mystical doctrine within Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism which can legitimately be interpreted as panentheistic in nature. Others (such as yourself) may well interpret matters differently. But I myself would never dream of dismissing your views as “absolute nonsense”!

// Well, I was not arguing against a 'polytheistic' notion of Buddhism. This includes *all* buddhist traditions (well, of course, I don't know about a new atheistic western form of Buddhism). Buddhism is certainly polytheistic as the Buddha himself described many kinds of gods and how they come into existence and how their existence ends! But a buddhist does not take refuge to such gods! We take refuge to the three jewels!

// Well, is an absolute creator god completely impossible... well, maybe one who is also very stupid could be possible. Most buddhist scholars would agree that it is very stupid to create beings that then need liberation. Why not creating them liberated? That is not possible, maybe? Well, then there is no absolute creation...

// So, I would really ask you to make clear in your article that such an absolute creator god is denied by all serious contemporary buddhist traditions. Or give some examples of those who do! Hey, if you are also an academic, then you should know better! --- Rainer Dickermann


All good wishes to you. - Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 09:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) *********************************************************


  • Hallo Rainer, thanks for your further remarks and clarifications. I don't think that we are actually in so much disagreement as it may at first appear. Just briefly on the "my entry" aspect: I'm not trying to claim proprietorial rights over this whole subject (that would be ridiculous), but the fact is that this "God in Buddhism" entry is indeed "my" entry, as I created it for the very first time on Wiki - so it is factually correct to describe the text of that entry as mine! But you are quite right that this is a public domain, so others are encouraged to contribute and debate - naturally!.

Now, on to your more important, substantive points: nowhere in the entry have I said that the Buddha was an absolute Creator God. It is rather yourself who have raised this issue. I was more concerned to give expression to the idea of an ultimate sustaining Reality (which can be named in various inadequate ways - Godhead being one of the more Western terms, along with the more specifically Buddhist "Tathata", "Nirvana", "Buddha", etc.) which is an intelligent, beneficent, indestructible Essence or Soul (the Buddhic "atman" of the Nirvana Sutra) of all that is. The Awakened Mind of which you yourself speak is completely compatible with that. It is not "my" awakened mind, nor "your" awakened mind, nor "her" awakened mind: it is just Mind-that-Is-Awake. I don't see any conflict here between us. This ultimate Reality - however we term it - is the eternal Truth ("Dharma"/ "tattva"/ "satya") which is characterised by bliss, purity, benevolence, compassion and omniscience (along with numerous other Buddha-qualities). It is not unreasonable to point to affinities and resonances between that Buddhist notion of Reality and the (Western) concept of an ultimate Godhead or panentheistic Ground of Being. One of the valuable possible functions of Wikipedia is to present areas of information which are frequently not elaborated upon in more "conventional" encylopaedias. Discussion is thus encouraged. Although you obviously don't like what I wrote in the "God in Buddhism" article (which is your prerogative, of course), I think that your opposition to it is based on a misreading of my text. I was not arguing that the Buddha is an Absolute Creator God (in the Judaic/Christian/Muslim sense). "God" does not necessarily have to be an Absolute Creator - but can be the omniscient "holding" Source or Matrix of all that is - whether that Source be termed "Mind" or "No-Mind" (as with some Zen teachers). It is in that sense that I spoke of "God in Buddhism". Best regards to you. - Tony TonyMPNS 15:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism and Buddhism

The teaching of Buddhist traditions about this subject does not form an orthodoxy.

The teaching of my Soto Zen tradition teaches that thinking God or not-God is probably a waste of time, and that's also what Guatanama Buddha taught. "Your idols of wood will burn in fire, clay will break, and metal will corrode."

I think that Buddhist theology is a Western pursuit that springs out of Western theistic ideas of divinity and the devine. Buddha doesn't have to be a God to be divine or powerful. I'm unsure if Asian Buddhist practitioners think of Buddha as a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent power like the Abrahamic God, but I don't think they spend a lot of time on it.

It's an interesting article, but one that shows what has to be called Western POV. That's not a complaint: perspective is inevitable. --Defenestrate 22:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Thanks, Defenestrate, for your thought-provoking comments. I enjoyed reading them. You may well have a point. Ultimately, what matters most is the practice of Dharma, rather than any labels or fixed concepts which we may attach to its various facets or even its totality. Openness and flexibility of mind are the key, I think. To that extent - I agree with much of the spirit of what you say. But perhaps as a Westerner, I'm doomed to a somewhat Western perspective (at least, in this present English incarnation!). Best wishes to you. - Tony. TonyMPNS 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of Original Sentence

My apologies to whomever changed my original sentence of the "God in Early Buddhism" section of the entry for returning the original formulation of that sentence. I'm sorry that I have had to do this, but unfortunately the change made did not accurately reflect what the Buddha actually states in the quoted sutta: he does not deny God there (and certainly not "god" - as he knows that Brahma and the other devas do exist - and actually details in this sutta the way to union with Brahma), but simply dismisses as foolish talk the claims of those who have not seen Brahma face to face and who do not live rightly and who yet presume to know the way to union with Brahma. Also, the new version of that sentence left the subsequent clause in an ungrammatical state - so a reversion to the original sentence was felt to be necessary. Regards - Tony TonyMPNS 14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Brahma or Brahman?

Thanks to Raj for the change of "Brahma" to "Brahman". But, Raj, the texts do actually speak of the personalised god, "Brahma", in this particular sutta, rather than the universal spirit, Brahman. So I think we need to change "Brahman" back to "Brahma". Also, although there are very few people who worship Brahma these days, at the time of the Buddha, there appear to have been plenty of Brahma-worshippers in India (the situation has since changed). Apparently, what you claim about a confusion over "Brahma" and "Brahman" has more connection with the Buddhist practice of the "Brahmaviharas" (radiating out friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity to the whole world): there is a scholarly argument that what is being referred to here is indeed "Brahman" rather than "Brahma". All the best to you. Tony. TonyMPNS 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] More Brahma/Brahman

As a student of the Vedas for some 10 years I would like to add my humble two-pence worth. From my understanding this is the view given in the Vedic texts regarding Brahma & Brahman.

Brahma = The deva (demigod) in charge of creation and the mode of passion 'rajas'. He is described as a temporary living entity, and is said to be the oldest living being in existence. His 'death' happens at the time of universal devastation, before material existence goes into an unmanifest state, and is then again reborn.

Brahman = The Impersonal aspect of the Supreme Person. That which is beyond material designation. Described also as 'God's brilliant effulgence'.

The traditional Vedic theory of liberation, or 'Moksha' is said to be when entrance is gained 'into' the Brahman. Essentially Moksha could be described as another word for 'Nirvana'.

As spirit souls (jivas) we are also essentially of the same quality as Brahman, although qualitively we are said to be different. See Sri Caitanya's philosophy of 'acinta-bheda-bheda tattva' (simultaneous oneness and difference).

This is not a 'Buddhist' view but I thought it might clarify the Brahma / Brahman issue somewhat?

Best Wishes

Om Tat Sat .... L 16/12/2005


  • Thank you, my Friend, for the above interesting comments (from the Hare Krishna perspective, I believe?). It is always nice to get a helpful response to what one has written. I appreciate your time and effort in writing what you have posted above. I agree with you about "moksha" and "Nirvana": in the Nirvana Sutra, "moksha" is co-terminous with Nirvana. They are basically the same experience of Liberation. Lots of peace ("shanti") to you. Warm wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry fork

I forked content from main buddhism article. The main article is now quite easy to navigate so i think one can expect more readers as well as editors to this article. Vapour

[edit] Did the Buddha refuse to answer questions about God?

This seems to be a popular sentiment, but I have never seen a reference to this in any sutra. It strikes me as one of those urban legends that grows out of the desire to be eccumenical when discussing religion with theists. It definately seems apologetic - "hey, I know you believe in God and I don't want to offend you, so let's just say that the Buddha didn't address the issue and leave it up in the air as a possibility" The Buddha did, famously, refuse to answer a specific question about the "self", but that refusal was for the benefit of the person who asked the question and to make the point about asking ourselves why we want to know things - is it for our own aggrandizment or to help us gain wisdom? It had nothing to do with God, however. At any rate, if someone can cite the sutra where this discussion occurs, I would be very grateful to have the reference so I can read it for myself.

On the other hand, in the Brahmajala Sutra, the idea of God was ridiculed by the Buddha. There are other references, but try as I might, I can't find the file I have them in. If I find them, I'll post them here.Nightngle 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It is not so much that the Buddha ridicules the idea of God per se in the Brahmajala Sutta - rather, he indicates in that sutta that Brahma (specifically) is not the All-Powerful, All-Seeing, All-Creator that Brahma (and others who come after him) wrongly believe he is. The Buddha does not here absolutely reject "God" (for which the general term would be a form of "Ishvara"). He simply rejects Brahma - who is a real type of being in Buddhism, not a fantasy - as being the All-Creator, All-Seeing, etc. Also, in this sutta the Buddha is mainly urging the avoidance of speculation and clinging to views - when those views are not based on full, direct knowledge. Only the Buddha has complete and perfect knowledge and thus has no need to speculate. He KNOWS. But that knowledge lies beyond mere thought. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, but you don't really answer the question. In the article, there is a statement that the Buddha refused to answer questions about God, and I don't see how this statement can stand without a direct citation from a sutta. Remember that the Buddha would have no knowledge of the God of Abraham, since he had no contact with the Israelites. It seems to me that his comments about Brahma would be the best corralary. I don't know when the concept of Ishvara entered what we today call Hinduism, but remember that Hinduism itself didn't exist when the Buddha was alive. It has evolved over the intervening 2,500+ years. It strikes me that much of this article is original research and opinion as opposed to being encycolpedic. That doesn't make it bad, just perhaps, not the best for this site. Nightngle 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Tweetie, there is a standard set of ten questions that the Buddha is reported to have left unanswered and these ten do not include the existence or otherwise of Īśvara. These ten are known as the ten avyākatas, typically listed in Majjhima Nikaya sutta 72. In brief, they are 1) Is the universe eternal ? 2) Is it not eternal ? 3) Is it finite ? 4) Is it infinite ? 5) Is the body the same as the soul ? 6) Is the body one thing and the soul another ? 7) Does the Tathagata exist after death ? 8) Does he not exist after death ? 9) Both ? 10) Neither ? There is also two supplementary avyākatas mentioned in Sumayutta Nikaya sutta 44.10: Is there a self ? Is there no self ? The Buddha refuses to take a position on any of these questions. But no mention of Īśvara (God)--Stephen Hodge 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hallo Cheryl (Nightingale). Thanks for your comments. I myself agree with you that a citation would be helpful for the statement that the Buddha refused to answer questions on the existence of God (I did not write that sentence myself). I also think it is inaccurate to say that "the Buddha" did not answer questions on metaphysical matters. Which "Buddha"? The Buddha of the Pali texts/ the agamas - or the Buddha(s) of the Mahayana? in Mahayana and Tantric literature he certainly does speak of metaphysical matters. We should not fall (in the context of an encyclopaedia) into the very, very POV stance of assuming that "Buddhism" and "the Buddha" are only what Theravada Buddhists say! Also, re. the Buddha's not knowing of the God of Abraham: well, according to the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha was all-knowing - seeing both past, present and future and having sovereignty over all dharmas - so he would have known of such things. I am not arguing for this particular piece of knowledge, by the way - just saying that if one takes into account the presentation of the Buddha in the Mahayana/ Tantra, one cannot say, without qualification, that the Buddha would not have known of certain religious views, etc.
  • As for the bulk of the article being "original research" and personal opinion: I don't share your view on that one, I'm afraid. I think that if one interprets the "no original research" too literally or too tightly, one would not be able to search for any quotes or citations or information on any matter - as that could be construed as "original research"! So I would share your view, Cheryl, that a citation re. Buddha's refusing to confirm or deny the existence of "God" would be useful here (I sympathise with your suspicion that this may be one of the many, many myths and inaccuracies that have built up about what "the Buddha" said or didn't say) - but unfortunately I don't really share your position on the "God in Buddhism" article overall. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I guess I've always seen the God in Buddhism arguements to be marching to the beat of a different drummer. Having been a Buddhist for most of my life, one of the things I've always thought Buddhists could agree on is that life was not created nor is it ruled or managed by any type of God/god(s)/ess(es). See Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana for examples of lists folks attempt to make from time to time in an effort to find what all schools of Buddhism can agree on. They all contain this sentiment. At any rate, I guess the mystical will always find a way back into even the most reason based religion, but in covering this phenomenon, I would like to see the citations from the suttas/sutras as the foundation of the interpretations. Afterall, what is the basis for the interpretations if not the sutras - and if the interepretations are not based on the sutras, they would be by definition original thought? Nightngle 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
See my comments above -- you might have missed them.--Stephen Hodge 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Stephen and Cheryl for the ideas and comments. Helpful - especially the list of questions that the Buddha of the agamas left unanswered. I note that, as Stephen points out, there is no mention of the existence or otherwise of Ishvara (God) there, so I have removed the sentence from the Intro which said that the Buddha refused to answer questions on the existence of an Absolute Creator God. As you say, Cheryl, we really do need to get a quote or citation from the suttas for this, if this claimed "fact" exists at all. But it looks as though you were right in your original posting - that this is a "myth" that has grown up. I tend to agree with Stephen's hint (if I have not misunderstood him) that the article does adequately cite suttas and sutras, which is surely vital (I share your view on this, Cheryl, 100%). So although most Buddhists probably do not "believe in God", the situation is more subtle when we come to look at what the sutras and Tantras teach. I think the article is reasonably balanced now, in that the first part indicates in its early sections that the Absolute Creator God notion is no part of Theravada Buddhism, whereas in Mahayana and the Tantras there are ideas and implications which move closer towards, if not directly onto, the territory of an incomprehensible, all-present sustaining Power (Dharma, Buddha-dhatu, Adibuddha, etc) within all phenomena. Thanks again, Stephen and Cheryl, for your help. All the best. From Tony

The nontheism article now has stronger references to the Poisoned Arrow Parable, which is a case of Buddha talking about something that was usually simply answered with silence. - Rgrant 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence from the opening paragraph is non-NPOV: "the seemingly non-deistic and non-theistic teachings of the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, and the mystically-hued ideas attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras". The distinction between the "teachings of the Buddha" in the Pali Canon and the "mystically-hued ideas attributed to the Buddha" in Mahayana relects bias. The Pali teachings and the Mahayana sutra teaching are all equally attributed to the Buddha, according to Wiki NPOV. Also what is "mystically-hued" ? Who has decided that ideas in the Pali Canon are not mystically-hued, whereas those in some Mahayana Sutras and Tantras are. Could we have the criteria spelt out ? This again is non-NPOV. Could appropriate changes be made ?--Stephen Hodge 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gods in Pali Canon

quote from article: seemingly non-deistic and non-theistic teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon

Actually this is not correct, the Pali Canon makes mention of many many gods, and so is not non-teistic nor non-deistic. It recognizes that gods exist, but does not exalt them as ideals which will forever save your soul, or give you an everlasting life. Gods die also, so a rebirth as a god is, although pleasurable, not an answer to life's dukkha. Life as a god does not have only advantages.

I only read the introduction to the article, but I don't like the tone of it, it seems very influenced by the desire sometimes seen in westerners not to want to have to believe in gods (often bceause of their experience with Christianity). Which is followed by a kind of pseudo-scientific approach, of trying to find reasons to confirm your belief in the non-existance of gods. But really the Pali Canon doesn't support those beliefs, in a large number of suttas devas (gods) are mentioned, sometimes even whole discussions take place. And most teachers or masters of the various Buddhist traditions recognize the existence of devas (gods), although they sometimes (depending on the person) may not talk about them a lot. greetings Sacca 09:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hallo Sacca. Don't be shocked: but I actually agree with you! I think you are totally and completely right. It is quite clear that "devas" ("gods") are presented as real beings (as real as you and I) in the Pali suttas. So I have changed that contentious sentence at the opening of the article to indicate that it is an omnipotent Creator God that is not affirmed by the Buddha in those Pali texts. All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

This article has been said to contian weasel words. I would like to hear what these weasel words are, so that the article's quality may be improved. Wandering Star 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality of the Awakened Mind

hello, there is a statement in the introduction that in Mahayana teachings about "an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha)." are like a Creator God, and in the article these teachings are contrasted to the absence of a creator God in the pali canon and the agamas. I think this is not correct, I have never heard this before, and think it goes against the basic (Mahayana) Buddhist teachings. I would like to delete the passage, I think all groups of Buddhism agree on the absence of a creator god and the presence of many types of gods. There are many ways to describe various aspects of the enlightened mind or ultimate reality and the above is one of those, it does't refer to gods. Greetings, Sacca 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I agree. I think the new version is clearer and more accurate. --Aetheling 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Brahma/Brahman...

Upanishads most certainly don't teach about God Brahma. They teach about brahman, the Absolute. To avoid sectarian information and edit wars (?), it would be best to remove all references to non-Buddhist material (like Upanishads) and the interpretation therein. Since this is about God in Buddhism it is enough to start with Buddha's interpretation of Brahma/brahman (Brahman in Earliest Buddhism: Digha Nikaya etc would be ok, but remove first three paragraphs). Nik, 193.77.150.213 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper translation of "Brahmabhutena attano" with sources...

In the "In Brahman in Earlist Buddhism" section, I came upon "Brahmabhutena attano" as "The Soul is having become Brahman". What I wanted to know is if the translation strictly meant "The Soul is having become Brahma", thus using Brahma instead of Brahman. I understand where the below argument comes in handy to try to place the word Brahman instead of Brahma -- For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. --

but I have issues with this convenient translation. The translation by Bhikku Bodhi seems to get at the point that Brahma should be thus translated as holy and attano as oneself, thus "oneself becomes holy" becomes the translation and that too is a viable translation then. What I am confused about is why, even if it does not necessarily make sense as "The Soul becomes Brahman", whoever edited this article took the liberty to define this as Brahman, without citing sources, and by placing his (or her) own POV of how this statement should be translated (he should at least site sources for his first point). I mean, maybe, there is a contradiction in the Pali Canon. But I am a bit worried that the contributor who edited this article did not cite a source (hopefully, a reputed Pali scholar) for this translation, since this is obviously not the translation used in any tradition of Buddhism I know of. So it looks like it was kind of edited towards giving a "Godhead" view.

Since this is a contraversial topic, I think articles should be cited (and not an unknown individual's translation of the statement).

Thanks.

I changed Brahma to Brahman. No so much as to 'correct' the article, but to make it inconsistent, so that someone with more knowledge would completely rewrite the article (which also happened it seems). I can not answer your question about that Pali statement "Brahmabhutena attano" (don't know anything about Pali), but in Sanskrit there is also a linguistical difference between Brahma and brahman: when with the root 'brahman' the Absolute is meant then the noun is neuter (nominative brahma), when the Deva Brahma is meant then the noun is of masculine gender (nominative brahmā). So information, whether brahman of Brahma is meant, is usually already expressed with the case of the noun (but not always). --Nik, 193.77.150.213 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Solitary Father

The Hebrew religion developed the concept of a single paternal God, possessing personality and omnipotence. The Islamic religion, as well as Christianity, both derived from the Hebrew, have a similar concept. All other religions do not have this concept. To attribute such monotheism to other religions is to mistakenly project the Hebrew-Christian-Islamic God onto religions in which it simply does not exist.Lestrade 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/d/Talk%7EGod_in_Buddhism_c090.html"