Did the Buddha talk about God?

[Love4All]

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, it is discovered. Each Buddha rediscovers the truths of Buddhism and preaches them to others. In time, I have seen figures of 5,000 to 10,000 years, the religion will decay and disappear. Then a new Buddha will be born and will rediscover the truths of Buddhism for himself.

Not if the Order of the C.’. D.’. is firmly established. Predictions made by the Buddha and others were made on the basis of the knowledge they possessed, which is not Infinite Knowledge. The Buddha’s system can only establish itself in the Sangha, not in the soil of the Earth itself. That is why it could be lost, and the Buddha knew this.

The truths the Buddha taught will survive and will never be forgotten, but Buddhism per se, that is, Buddhism as a separate religion, will dissolve in Love. That is because the Buddha never intended to found “Buddhism,” rather, he merely wished to teach a system for overcoming Dukkha.

“Isms” in general are all based on dividing the human race between those in the “ism” and those outside of it.

We are in a New Aeon now. All such divisions will cease.

Catholicism alone will remain as the sole “ism,” simply because Catholicism is Universal.

Nothing that is true in Buddhism will be lost; all truth, shall remain, and not only shall it remain, it shall also be purified, as in fire, so as to be Pure. Then shall the Pure Land be seen, as this Earth. Then shall the Kingdom of Heaven be established.

The question is not particularly important; their existence or non-existence has no impact on my path. I have no reason to disbelieve in them.

The concepts of the heavens and hells in Buddhism correlate to possible states of being. It is far more useful to think of them as possible states than as locations or worlds. They potentially exist, in this world, and that is the point.

The Buddhist universe does not always have a material component. There are times when it includes a material component and times when it does not. The Big Bang was the point at which the universe last changed from immaterial only to mixed material and immaterial. In future the material component will again disappear for a time only to reappear later.

rossum

Here, you appear to be caught up in a Mythos that the Buddha also was caught up in. It will be useful for you to consider the historical context of Gautama’s appearance. He was very much a Hindu, and his entire thought was immersed in the Hindu notion of an endlessly repeating cycle.

It is because of this, that the Buddha despaired of ever really rescuing physical existence, and preached instead, total escape from birth. The Buddha was aware of inconsistencies in his system, but he saw it as having value nonetheless, so, he preached it.

However, illusions are illusions. The myth of the “Eternal Return” is just that, a myth. It is a contrivance of the human intellect, to attempt to make sense of the apparent dichotomy of finity/infinity. As such, it is an attempt, not a success. Reality is actually quite a lot cooler than any of the philosophers dream!

“Eternal Return” lacks because it presents the whole progress of the world as essentially futile. The Buddha incorporated a similar futility in what you mentioned above, in his teaching that eventually, all knowledge would be lost, and one would appear again as the new Buddha.

I fear I am not expressing this well, and my whole aim in this dissertation is to help you to recognize the truth for yourself. But it seems I am to a point where I am about to do nothing more than multiply words, and that is not my intent.

When a finite being attempts to take a finite world and express it in a manner that can be seen as somehow infinite, he has no other recourse but to employ repetition, and that is what the Hindu sages, including the Buddha, did. The Buddha did nothing to reform Hindu thought on this point; rather, he constructed his system on its basis, and did not attempt to alter the paradigm. But there is a fundamental flaw in the paradigm itself, that the Buddha did not address. It would be a grave error for you, then, to continue to adhere to that paradigm, flawed as it is, when there is manifesting today a better understanding. It would be the equivalent, for you, of staring at the finger pointing at the moon, instead of looking at the moon where the finger is pointing.

 

[Love4All]

Yes. It is one of the two elements from which the Peano axioms are built: S() and 0.

rossum

More looking at the finger. I am a little disappointed, I would have thought you capable of deeper thought than this.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
This is not particularly important.**

Do I detect a pattern in your thinking: that a lot of things in Buddhism are not particularly important?

Briefly, what is for you the most important thought in Buddhism?

And is there any thought in Buddhism that is agreed to by all Buddhists?

Because it seems to me from what you have said that Buddhism keeps slipping and sliding all over the place.

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, it is discovered. Each Buddha rediscovers the truths of Buddhism and preaches them to others.

This sounds pretty much like Protestantism, which is constantly reinventing itself with each new sect that arrives … thousands to date.

 

[Love4All]

Im not sure where YHVW came from. Abraham was a cannanite and they followed Baal. But we really don’t know the name of the God of abraham. Abraham was a diviner we know along with his brother in the animals they chose to sacrifice. Just to throw out there

YHWH describes the entire process that, according to Buddhism, created the world. Thus,

Y — Fire
H — Water
V — Air
H — Earth.

According to the Buddhist mythology, it is ourselves who created the world, not Brahma. Brahma, according to the Buddhist mythos, was merely the first of us to arrive in this universe, and in his delusion he held himself to be its Creator. The actual Creator, however, is Yahweh, and here is a source of potentially endless confusion or possibly deep understanding, depending on rossum’s reaction.

Buddhism is Impersonal. As such, we are not going to be able to express the reality of Yahweh in Buddhist terms. It is very much a case of East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. However, this is not to say that is is impossible for us to enlighten rossum’s ignorance. We are not talking here about the Christian concept of the God who created heaven and earth, we are talking, rather, about the Buddhist concept of the dependent origination of all things. There is no true Creator God in Buddha’s system. His system was not concerned with how properly to worship God, but rather with how to escape the ubiquitous Dukkha. The Creation of the World, then, in Buddhism, is from the desires of sentient beings for experience. Thus it is said that everything begins in Ignorance. The sentient being is ignorant of experience, and desires experience, and so begins the causal chain that culminates in Birth. Because everything begins this way, it is a little inaccurate to a Buddhist to even speak of a “sentient being.” The being, in the Ignorance phase, has not yet actually become. Becoming is part of the process.

Now, while Christians believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, there is no parallel concept in Buddhism except for the Self. I take it as a given that rossum does not share our faith. I don’t know whether the discussion so far has changed his mind on this point, but initially, he made a grave error in this thread, namely, the conflating of Yahweh with Brahma. Brahma is a Hindu deity, and very few if any Hindus hold Brahma to be the ultimate Source of everything. Many Hindus hold that ultimate Source to be something called Brahman. There is some misunderstanding here that can easily be cleared up. Brahma and Brahman are not the same thing at all; they are only somewhat similar in name. Brahman is the Source of all gods and goddesses, whereas Brahma is one of the gods.

Now it has already been stated that Christians believe in a personal God, but it is a grave error to equate Christian belief in a personal God with Hindu or Buddhist conceptions of gods. They are, once again, simply not parallel. In particular, as mentioned, Buddhism is Impersonal, and there is at least one very popular Hindu school that is likewise Impersonal, namely the Advaita Vedanta. There is more to be said on some of these things, but I wish, in this posting, to get to my point, so I will have to expound at a later time on the nuance of the actual reform that Buddha brought to Hindu thought. What I wish to relate here, is an understanding, in Buddhist terms, of the Holy Name. And I hope, in this manner, to be able to clear up the confusion I see principally in our friend rossum. It is primarily to him that this post is directed, although others may certainly find it interesting.

Buddhism is Impersonal; and while Christians hold Yahweh to be a Personal God, we can see in history that that is not the only use that has ever been made of the Tetragrammaton. Above, I made reference to an esoteric teaching that presents a correlation between the four letters of the Divine Name, Yod-He-Vav-He, and the four classical elements of the world. It is thus that the Divine Name can be seen as an elucidation of the entire process of Manifestation. In order for there to be a manifestation of any kind, all four elements must work together; thus, dependent origination. Each of the four elements can be seen as correlating to something in us. So that, the first impulse toward becoming is desire, Fire, the Ignorance of all experience mentioned above that seeks to end itself by acquiring experience. Then, Water, the reflective principle in the Mind, of that desire for experience. Then, Air, the work of actually manifesting a Body to have experiences, and finally, Earth, the manifest physical body of the being who then takes birth.

It can easily be seen that no one has any other means of entry into this world. The Buddha himself, and rossum if he is wise, will admit that his own Origin is just this. And while it may be that there is still some confusion on some point, this is a LOT closer to a true understanding, from a Buddhist perspective, of what is actually meant by a Christian when he says that Yahweh created the world. It can also be seen that the Buddha did talk a lot about this, but equally, that it would be utterly false to assert that Yahweh is a being in need of liberation. Rather, YHVH describes the whole process of becoming, and of course, this includes, likewise, the whole process of enlightenment and liberation, even though I have not expounded here on that aspect of the work.

 

[wittgenstein]

All Buddhists believe that all is ephemeral and the self is an illusion.

 

[Love4All]

rossum
**
This is not particularly important.**

Do I detect a pattern in your thinking: that a lot of things in Buddhism are not particularly important?

Briefly, what is for you the most important thought in Buddhism?

And is there any thought in Buddhism that is agreed to by all Buddhists?

Because it seems to me from what you have said that Buddhism keeps slipping and sliding all over the place.

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, it is discovered. Each Buddha rediscovers the truths of Buddhism and preaches them to others.

This sounds pretty much like Protestantism, which is constantly reinventing itself with each new sect that arrives … thousands to date.

Charlemagne, again, if I may:

All Buddhists hold that,

1. Life undeniably contains an element of dissatisfaction, incompletion, inadequacy, suffering.
2. This suffering has a root, and the root can be defined as desire, craving, clinging. Specifically, we tend to cling to the body, to sensation, to perception, to volition or formative tendencies, and to consciousness.
3. It is possible to eradicate this root, i.e. to come to a state of being wherein one no longer clings to any of these things, and so, no longer suffers from clinging.
4. The means of overcoming clinging, craving, desire, is to walk the Noble Eightfold Path, which is:
5. Right view
6. Right thinking
7. Right speech
8. Right action
9. Right livelihood
10. Right effort
11. Right mindfulness
12. Right concentration.

As far as I know, these basics constitute fundamental Buddhism, and the rest of the teachings are variations based on these.

Rossum may correct me if I’ve erred.

 

[rossum]

Predictions made by the Buddha and others were made on the basis of the knowledge they possessed, which is not Infinite Knowledge.

Parable of the Simsapa Leaves

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in Simsapa Grove. Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapa leaves in his hand, said to the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which are the more numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the trees of the grove?”

“Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the trees are far more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?

“Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbana. That is why I have not revealed it.”

– Samyutta Nikaya 56.31, Simsapa sutta

rossum

 

[Love4All]

All Buddhists believe that all is ephemeral and the self is an illusion.

I would not say so. The Buddha himself specifically refused to answer the question of whether one who has been liberated and passed away, still exists.

I did a little bit of research, and I found a most excellent resource. This page, I think, explains it quite clearly, and in a way that can easily be grasped.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

 

[Love4All]

Parable of the Simsapa Leaves

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in Simsapa Grove. Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapa leaves in his hand, said to the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which are the more numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the trees of the grove?”

“Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the trees are far more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?

“Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbana. That is why I have not revealed it.”

– Samyutta Nikaya 56.31, Simsapa sutta

rossum

I’m not talking about his methods of attainment, I’m talking about his predictions of the future of this world.

And very specifically, I am stating categorically, that if the Order of the C.’. D.’. becomes fully established, Knowledge shall never again fade away. The Order is a permanent repository for Knowledge, that cannot die.

Note that my statement is conditional. I am not making a blanket prediction for the future, I am saying that IF this occurs, THEN that will follow.

 

[Love4All]

You, too, rossum, can benefit from this link:

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

It explains things more clearly than you seemed, earlier, to be grasping them. Specifically, you advanced Nihilism which the Buddha did not. And the distinction is clearly elucidated in the above link.

 

[rossum]

Do I detect a pattern in your thinking: that a lot of things in Buddhism are not particularly important?

There are things that are important in Buddhism, but many things that are important in the Abrahamic religions, and that I often get asked questions about, are not important in Buddhism. For example, a lot of the Bible is history, and Buddhism is not really interested in history. Hence any questions about history, like the origin of the universe, will generally get a response of “not important”. Gods are another example.

The parable of the Man Shot with an Arrow is relevant here:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Majjhima Nikaya 63, Cula-Malunkyovada sutta

Briefly, what is for you the most important thought in Buddhism?

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

Buddhism is not an Orthodoxy, it is an Orthopraxy; what you do is more important than what you believe.

And is there any thought in Buddhism that is agreed to by all Buddhists?

The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. All schools accept the Pali Canon (or its equivalents) but they may interpret it differently.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Charlemagne, again, if I may:

All Buddhists hold that,

1. Life undeniably contains an element of dissatisfaction, incompletion, inadequacy, suffering.
2. This suffering has a root, and the root can be defined as desire, craving, clinging. Specifically, we tend to cling to the body, to sensation, to perception, to volition or formative tendencies, and to consciousness.
3. It is possible to eradicate this root, i.e. to come to a state of being wherein one no longer clings to any of these things, and so, no longer suffers from clinging.
4. The means of overcoming clinging, craving, desire, is to walk the Noble Eightfold Path, which is:
5. Right view
6. Right thinking
7. Right speech
8. Right action
9. Right livelihood
10. Right effort
11. Right mindfulness
12. Right concentration.

As far as I know, these basics constitute fundamental Buddhism, and the rest of the teachings are variations based on these.

Rossum may correct me if I’ve erred.

You are correct, and have not erred.

rossum

 

[InJesusItrust]

Yes, that is the real answer to the O.P.

Can you express it in a way that rossum will accept and understand? I see that as the primary challenge in this thread. The answer has been given, but perhaps not understood, and it is the understanding that is the principal thing we are after.

I find it hard enough to explain why God can logically be uncaused, using analogies like dominoes and whole numbers. I think the big problem is he sees the universe containing God whereas in Christianity God contains the universe. Because of this he thinks God is not the origin of the universe.

 

[billcu1]

Charlemagne, again, if I may:

All Buddhists hold that,

1. Life undeniably contains an element of dissatisfaction, incompletion, inadequacy, suffering.
2. This suffering has a root, and the root can be defined as desire, craving, clinging. Specifically, we tend to cling to the body, to sensation, to perception, to volition or formative tendencies, and to consciousness.
3. It is possible to eradicate this root, i.e. to come to a state of being wherein one no longer clings to any of these things, and so, no longer suffers from clinging.
4. The means of overcoming clinging, craving, desire, is to walk the Noble Eightfold Path, which is:
5. Right view
6. Right thinking
7. Right speech
8. Right action
9. Right livelihood
10. Right effort
11. Right mindfulness
12. Right concentration.

As far as I know, these basics constitute fundamental Buddhism, and the rest of the teachings are variations based on these.

Rossum may correct me if I’ve erred.

Sounds right to me. That’s about all he personally taught. There has been so much added to buddhism like from one of my favorite buddhist saints Nagarjuna. Remember in order to learn something one must set aside prejudices and previous teachings to avoid confussion. I’m not saying abandon for good one’s beliefs such as catholic but it’s easy to mix and get confussed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

Here is the problem with your analogy. In life we are not perpetually going around shot with an arrow that is smeared in poison. If we were, yes, I can see why many things might be unimportant. But life is not a perpetual disaster scene. so we have the right and the natural inclination, as Aristotle said, to know whatever we can know, and there are many important things to know.

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

These are also the teachings of many other great religious thinkers. I am asking you about the most important thought of Buddha that distinguishes him from other thinkers. How has he been greatly enlightened in ways that are specific to him, rather than to Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus?

 

[rossum]

In life we are not perpetually going around shot with an arrow that is smeared in poison.

We are. We are suffering, unless we are enlightened. Remember the First Noble Truth.

These are also the teachings of many other great religious thinkers. I am asking you about the most important thought of Buddha that distinguishes him from other thinkers.

You originally asked, “Briefly, what is for you the most important thought in Buddhism?” which is the question I answered.

Turning to your second question, what makes Buddhism different is the Three Marks: Impermanence, Suffering and Soullessness. Other religions tend to see the world as permanent with a superficial veneer of apparent change overlaid in parts. Belief in an eternal soul is one manifestation of that tendency. Buddhism sees the world as changing with a superficial veneer of apparent permanence overlaid in parts. The suffering is caused by our expectations of permanence constantly being disappointed by the reality of change.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

We are. We are suffering, unless we are enlightened.

Not sure what this means. Sounds like a kind of regular and incurable constipation that can be overcome by flushing out ignorance with knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom and knowledge are two of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit…
**
The suffering is caused by our expectations of permanence constantly being disappointed by the reality of change.**

That is not life. Anyone who says it is is suffering from something besides unfulfilled expectations.

The Christian view of life is that most suffering is caused by sin, which I strongly believe. One such sin might be refusing to grow up and refusing to learn that change is a part of the goodness of life. Indeed, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is fortitude, or the enduring strength to combat sin and adjust to the changes or disappointments that naturally go with life.

As you know, the Christian view of suicide is that it is a sin because it goes against hope, one of the three great virtues. It also goes against love, another of the three great virtues … in this case love of self.

What is the Buddhist view of suicide?

 

[rossum]

Not sure what this means. Sounds like a kind of regular and incurable constipation that can be overcome by flushing out ignorance with knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom and knowledge are two of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Enlightenment is not a gift, it is earned. Buddhism is a “works only” religion, not a “faith only” religion.

That is not life. Anyone who says it is is suffering from something besides unfulfilled expectations.

“Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.”

– Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
Not expectations but desires. We desire permanence of the good things in life, and the permanent absence of the bad things. Both are unattainable.

What is the Buddhist view of suicide?

It is a form of injury to a living being and so is contrary to the first of the five moral rules:

• to avoid injury to living beings.
• to avoid taking what is not given.
• to avoid sensual misconduct.
• to avoid false and malicious speech.
• to avoid intoxicants.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

** to avoid injury to living beings.
to avoid taking what is not given.
to avoid sensual misconduct.
to avoid false and malicious speech.
to avoid intoxicants.**

Eminently reasonable and Christian!

Enlightenment is not a gift, it is earned.

It is a gift. The teacher enlightens the student, if he will be enlightened, as did Christ enlighten us by the Sermon on the Mount, and Buddha enlightened his followers by leaving his teachings behind.

Buddhism is a “works only” religion, not a “faith only” religion.

Catholicism is a works and faith religion. A faithless religion does not hold people together in a common creed. Faith is the third of the great Catholic virtues. Those who despise it are doomed to be islands of humanity. But no man is an island.
**
Not expectations but desires. We desire permanence of the good things in life, and the permanent absence of the bad things. Both are unattainable.**

In this life they are not permanently attainable. In the next life they are if our lives are well spent. That is called divine Justice and Mercy. I don’t see any divine Justice and Mercy in Buddhism. After all, who is there to dispense it? Certainly not the “gods” that you say can be “safely ignored.”

 

[wittgenstein]

Suppose I have faith that “X” exists. I cannot define “X”. “X” is undefineable, ineffable,like God. Does,“I believe that X exists” have any meaning?
Loving God is not rational*.

• Kierkegaard, if there are reasons why I love my wife,those reasons are not love! They are an explanation of love. If I thought my love for my wife = the explanation that would be like confusing the menu with the food.