Did the Buddha talk about God?

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein

Is any action where the person does not ask for God’s assistance egotistical? If I pick up my cup of coffee without asking for God’s help am I being egotistical?

Refusing to acknowledge the source of all our goods in life is egotistical. The child who is thankless toward his parents is egotistical. The person who does not say grace before meals is egotistical. He likes to think he made the coffee, but he does not like to acknowledge that God made both him and the coffee.

 

[Love4All]

It seems that the original question was answered, and now a debate has begun on Buddhism v. Christianity.

Does it seem that the answer to the original question was understood? I don’t think so. There is still some real disagreement here on what that answer actually is.

Q. Did the Buddha talk about God?

A. No, the Buddha refused to speculate as to the Origin of All Things. The Buddha specifically refused to answer such questions, and pointedly discouraged his monks from pondering the answer to such questions, as the consideration of such questions, according to the Buddha, do not tend to edification.

Q. Did the Buddha talk about gods?

A. Yes, the Buddha stated that gods and human beings are essentially in the same boat when it comes to suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of the origin of suffering, and the path to the cessation of the origin of suffering.

Rossum, our resident Buddhist, has so far failed to understand that these two questions are different. He holds that they are the same. Thus, the original question has not been answered to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is insufficient to merely quote information. What is wanted is understanding, and that has not yet been attained.

 

[Love4All]

Correct. The Buddha was pointing out that the god who claimed to be the origin of all was mistaken. The Brahmajala sutta explains why that god was mistaken and how his error arose.

No god can be the origin of all because that does not explain the origin of the god himself.

rossum

But the Christian God is not a god.

 

[Love4All]

Buddhism rejects the existence of any soul. What we see as our soul has as much reality as the water we see in a mirage. We cannot lose our soul because we do not have one to start with. We just think we do, but we are mistaken:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

rossum

You are mistaken. The question is not so much whether you are mistaken, as it is whether you are willing to receive correction, or whether, on the contrary, you would rather maintain your error that you are not mistaken. I leave it up to you. I will not teach one who states he has nothing to learn from me.

 

[Love4All]

Is any action where the person does not ask for God’s assistance egotistical? If I pick up my cup of coffee without asking for God’s help am I being egotistical?

It is not necessarily egotistical for you to pick up your cup of coffee without asking for God’s assistance. It would be egotistical for you to hold that you can possibly pick up your cup of coffee without God’s assistance.

Also, I am confused by your saying that Buddhists preach to the Gods. Since it is possible to be an atheist Buddhist what Gods is he preaching to?

You are conflating “God” with “gods.” To mention “Gods” is absurd and incoherent. “gods,” there may be, but there cannot be more than one “God.”

I think you are only perpetuating confusion and ignorance if you attempt to merge, without qualification, the disparate concepts of Vedic gods and the Abrahamic God.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Err what in the heck does negative numbers have to do with cause and effect? What is a negative cause? Show me negative 2 apples please.

I chose whole numbers as an isomorphic model because it corresponds to reality. The rest of the numbers are abstractions made by man.

I think that you are finding objections not out of a thirst for truth but to hold your position. What I am saying is not so hard to understand. Charlemagne raised a good point about uncaused universes and uncaused gods.

 

[rossum]

It’s important to remember that the Buddhist/Hindu concept of what makes a God well, a God. Is very different from the Judeo/Christian concept of God

Correct. The Abrahamic God tends to be placed outside the universe, while the Buddhist gods are placed inside it.

Since the Buddhist universe is “all that exists”, including the non-material parts like the heavens, the Abrahamic placement does not make sense. Anything outside of “all that exists” obviously does not exist.

YMMV (to put it mildly!)

rossum

 

[rossum]

How would the Buddha deal with the Big Bang?

It is the transition from an immaterial phase to a mixed material/immaterial phase:

I believe this is you speaking, not the Buddha.

It is logic. If God exists, then how can God be the origin of God? Is God created? If He is not created then He cannot have created Himself.

The notion that there cannot be an uncaused God is defeated by the the Buddhist assumption that there can be an uncaused universe. Why can you have an uncaused universe but not an uncaused God?

Look at the Kalaam argument. Something which has no beginning cannot have a cause because there is no place for a prior cause to fit. If something is always present then it needs no cause. All Buddhist gods have a beginning and an end so they all have a cause.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But the Christian God is not a god.

In Buddhism He is. He is very long lived, very powerful but He is one of the many many gods.

You are mistaken. The question is not so much whether you are mistaken, as it is whether you are willing to receive correction, or whether, on the contrary, you would rather maintain your error that you are not mistaken. I leave it up to you. I will not teach one who states he has nothing to learn from me.

If you discuss with a Buddhist, then you must expect to be exposed to standard Buddhist teachings, such as anatta. If you don’t wish to follow that teaching then that is your choice.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
If something is always present then it needs no cause.**

Exactly. And that is the way we look at the Abrahamic God.
**
It is the transition from an immaterial phase to a mixed material/immaterial phase:**

The astronomers will be relieved to know this!

 

[InJesusItrust]

Correct. The Abrahamic God tends to be placed outside the universe, while the Buddhist gods are placed inside it.

Since the Buddhist universe is “all that exists”, including the non-material parts like the heavens, the Abrahamic placement does not make sense. Anything outside of “all that exists” obviously does not exist.

YMMV (to put it mildly!)

rossum

How then do you avoid pantheism?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Since the Buddhist universe is “all that exists”, including the non-material parts like the heavens, the Abrahamic placement does not make sense. Anything outside of “all that exists” obviously does not exist.

That’s only if Buddha was also a victim of scientism, the view that all we can know is what we can observe and test through our senses. But it’s quite apparent that Buddha doesn’t even like the material world since it is viewed as a prison. This is contrary to the Abrahamic God, who finished all of Creation, physical and spiritual, and saw that it is good.

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Genesis 1:31

 

[Gricken]

Correct. The Abrahamic God tends to be placed outside the universe, while the Buddhist gods are placed inside it.

Since the Buddhist universe is “all that exists”, including the non-material parts like the heavens, the Abrahamic placement does not make sense. Anything outside of “all that exists” obviously does not exist.

YMMV (to put it mildly!)

rossum

Makes no sense in the way you understand it you mean. In our understanding, your idea of a god makes no sense us. Pretty much contridictions of each other really.

 

[billcu1]

In Christianity, life is the gift, and suffering and death are curses.

In Buddhism, from what I understand, life is the cause of suffering and death.

If the goal is to stop living, then ending all life is a way to go about it. Is my logic wrong here?

I can’t understand why life is treated as precious if it is something the Buddhist goal is to eliminate. This is the paradox I am talking about.

You are seeing things and not understanding them and judging them before you understand. That’s what Jesus warned about. Jesus and the Buddha were very much on the same page. Kind of one spirit. But there’s the competition issue here. As Catholics are taught everyone’s wrong but us. You must have Christ. No one else comes close. They are in fact the same. I wouldn’t say as a buddhist (and Roman Catholic) life isn’t the cause of suffering and death. Life is the result of it. It’s a perpetual feedback loop. The goal is not to stop living. But to begin actually living.

 

[billcu1]

Where are you getting your information?

Well being a buddhist(and catholic) I’ve been around long enough to learn alot. There are specifically name buddhas too in the hells preaching. I can’t remember their names but they’re in the cold and hot hells. Read “pureland buddhism”. I’ve been a Tibetan buddhist since before I became catholic. Remember our jobs as catholics is to witness. All will not come to Christ and they’re not doomed if they don’t. That’s a christian selling point. Jesus said to the Lord all those you have choose to come to me. God decides who comes.

 

[billcu1]

This is what I have just read: budsas.org/ebud/ebdha192.htm

“Dr Mettanando Bhikkhu was a physician before entering the monkhood. He is currently based at Wat Raja Orasaram, Thailand”

Some time ago I’v read the same thing from another source, that Buddha died because he ate too much for his age, and I was not sure about the source. It looks like there are different opinions, but the cause was food anyway.
Arent there little statues with Buddha as an obese person? Are they only symbolic, and he was actualy slim?

Questionably poisoned by a jealous follower too. The mushrooms were poison.

 

[billcu1]

**Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." **John 14:6

Jesus could say this speaking of himself as the son. The buddha could’ve said the same words and it would be as true. It is not robbery to be called equal with God for any of us we are in his image. The Son is the Son. The Word is the Word. Look and you will see! He who has eyes to see let him see.

 

[InJesusItrust]

You are seeing things and not understanding them and judging them before you understand. That’s what Jesus warned about. Jesus and the Buddha were very much on the same page. Kind of one spirit. But there’s the competition issue here. As Catholics are taught everyone’s wrong but us. You must have Christ. No one else comes close. They are in fact the same. I wouldn’t say as a buddhist (and Roman Catholic) life isn’t the cause of suffering and death. Life is the result of it. It’s a perpetual feedback loop. The goal is not to stop living. But to begin actually living.

Then why bother with nirvana, the cessation of rebirth and life? The way buddhists have posted in these forums in the past leads me to believe that they believe “life is suffering”.

 

[billcu1]

rossum
**
The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”**

Anyone can be awake. Only one can be God.

God does not offer us nirvana. That is desire for annihilation … not conscious peace.

Nirvana is not annihilation lol. It is the cessation of suffering. Read the Theologica Germanica. To be awake is to be equal with God. “Only one can be God” is a non seq.

 

[billcu1]

Makes no sense in the way you understand it you mean. In our understanding, your idea of a god makes no sense us. Pretty much contridictions of each other really.

The gods are a race like us. I am a descendant of Thor Odin’s son from my father’s father’s mother’s side. I am serious now. Hollywood was founded by Odin when he went by the name Charlie Chaplain. It was Zeus who wrote our declaration of Indepence in the US when he was in human form with us.