A
Ahimsa
Guest
It’s a common misconception that Hinduism or Buddhism are “pantheistic”; but that’s another thread, another universe.
- Status
P
passer_by
Guest
Haha ok then. You are certainly the first one to claim that Hinduism and Buddhism are non-pantheistic (I have lived in a Buddhist country btw)
So if this is the Ahimsa nikaye of Buddhism, well, its new to me
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I’m glad to be the first person to accurately describe both Hinduism and Buddhism to you.
(By the way, a country can’t take Refuge in the Triple Gem.
)
P
passer_by
Guest
Thank you, but I lived in a land called Sri Lanka which was responsible for the distribution of Buddhism right after India gave it to us. I like to think that I learnt it from the Pros.I’m glad to be the first person to accurately describe both Hinduism and Buddhism to you.
(By the way, a country can’t take Refuge in the Triple Gem.
So I think you might want to hit the books and really learn your faith… if you are actually Buddhist.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
If you had said that East Asian Buddhism was ‘pantheistic’, at least that would be something I could see someone (mistakenly) saying, but Sri Lankan Buddhism is the very anti-thesis of “pantheism”. But – another thread, another universe.
P
passer_by
Guest
Wow, I am offended. I honestly am offended. You are saying that Sri Lankan Buddhism has no pantheistic ideas in it.If you had said that East Asian Buddhism was ‘pantheistic’, at least that would be something I could see someone (mistakenly) saying, but Sri Lankan Buddhism is the very anti-thesis of “pantheism”. But – another thread, another universe.
You my friend, either have no clue what Pantheism and Therevada Buddhism is or you are using some other language.
P
passer_by
Guest
Yep, but Therevada is the most ancient form. Its like Catholicism vs. Protestantism in the Buddhist sense.
In fact in Therevada, Buddhism is more closer to a Philosophy. There is less place for Gods. It is only after the influence of more Hinduism that Buddhism started allowing room for God’s and is seen as an error by most Purist in the Therevada tradition.
In fact in Therevada, Buddhism is more closer to a Philosophy. There is less place for Gods. It is only after the influence of more Hinduism that Buddhism started allowing room for God’s and is seen as an error by most Purist in the Therevada tradition.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Would you be so kind as to define what you mean by “pantheism”?
P
passer_by
Guest
A
Ahimsa
Guest
So which definition are you using? Or which one do you consider most accurate?
P
passer_by
Guest
They are both accurate. One is just more precise and stringent. It depends on what sort of academic work you are doing I guess.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Why don’t you say what you mean and explain what this post is about. What is the definition of pantheism that you are using? Why do you say that Buddhism and Hinduism are not pantheistic?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
OK, let’s take a look at the first one:
“God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature."
The first very first word of this definition would send a Theravada Buddhist into apoplectic shock (just kidding
).There are many ways to define “God”, and some of them might be consistent with Theravada and some might not. Here are some possible definitions of “God”:
- The Sole Creator of All, and this Creator possesses an individuality of some definable sort
- The Sole Source of All, and all things are simply manifestations of this Sole Source, and this Sole Source is not an “individual” person, but transcends (and permeates) all things.
- The Being who is the Source of Ultimate Joy, without being the Creator or Source of all things.
- Any Being who has realized the “Ultimate” (however conceived), without being the Source or Creator of that Ultimate.
- The Condition in which there is no dissatisfaction, no lust, hatred, or delusion, in other words, the Condition of Perfect Joy. This Condition is “impersonal” in the sense that anyone can realize it; but this Condition is also “personal” in the sense that only a “person” can realize it.
And the list can go on and on, but these five definitions are a good place to start.
(The second Stanford definition is a bit more vague. It says that all things are all somehow “divine”, or “God-like”. But that’s not “pantheism”, which argues that “all is God”, not “all are God-like”, so we can dispense with this second Stanford definition.)
So, the first and third Stanford definitions are actually variations of definition #2 above: God as the Sole Source of All things, with all things being manifestations of God.
[continued]
A
Ahimsa
Guest
[continued]
However, in Theravada Buddhism, there is no “Source of All things”, there is no one thing, person, substance, or anything whatsoever that is the “sole” origin, beginning, or source of the physical cosmos or any spiritual worlds that exist beyond/within the physical cosmos. The different elements that make up the physical cosmos interact with each other, and produce various combinations and configurations (planets, stars, animals, humans, etc), but there is no one “source” that is the ultimate origin of the (physical or non-physical) cosmos altogether.
Not even Nibbana, the “Highest Happiness/Joy” is the sole “source” of all things, as the Buddha revealed (to the shock and consternation of many of His disciples!) in the Mulapariyaya Sutta, where the Buddha, speaking of Himself, the Tathagata, states:
The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened….directly knows Unbinding [that is, Nibbana] as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as ‘mine,’ does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.
In other words, Nibbana, the “Unbinding”, is so unlike anything else, so “transcendent” to anything else, that one can’t even speak of Nibbana as being the “source” of all things. To think or imagine that “things com[e] out of the Unbinding” is to not understand what Nibbana is. Nibbana is not the Creator, Source, Manifester, or “root” (the term used in the Sutta) of any “thing” whatsoever. There is no one Being (or “God”) that is all things; and there is no Being (or “God”) that “manifests” as all beings.
So, no, Theravada Buddhism is not “pantheistic”: there is no “God-is-All” “God-is-that-which-manifests-as-All” teaching in the Theravada tradition. The Theravada Buddhist tradition categorically denies that.
However, in Theravada Buddhism, there is no “Source of All things”, there is no one thing, person, substance, or anything whatsoever that is the “sole” origin, beginning, or source of the physical cosmos or any spiritual worlds that exist beyond/within the physical cosmos. The different elements that make up the physical cosmos interact with each other, and produce various combinations and configurations (planets, stars, animals, humans, etc), but there is no one “source” that is the ultimate origin of the (physical or non-physical) cosmos altogether.
Not even Nibbana, the “Highest Happiness/Joy” is the sole “source” of all things, as the Buddha revealed (to the shock and consternation of many of His disciples!) in the Mulapariyaya Sutta, where the Buddha, speaking of Himself, the Tathagata, states:
The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened….directly knows Unbinding [that is, Nibbana] as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as ‘mine,’ does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.
In other words, Nibbana, the “Unbinding”, is so unlike anything else, so “transcendent” to anything else, that one can’t even speak of Nibbana as being the “source” of all things. To think or imagine that “things com[e] out of the Unbinding” is to not understand what Nibbana is. Nibbana is not the Creator, Source, Manifester, or “root” (the term used in the Sutta) of any “thing” whatsoever. There is no one Being (or “God”) that is all things; and there is no Being (or “God”) that “manifests” as all beings.
So, no, Theravada Buddhism is not “pantheistic”: there is no “God-is-All” “God-is-that-which-manifests-as-All” teaching in the Theravada tradition. The Theravada Buddhist tradition categorically denies that.
P
passer_by
Guest
Ahimsa, I have no clue what your agenda is and I am not going to assume it.
But here is the deal.
Therevada Buddhism in its purest form is Deistic at best. It clearly holds that God’s cannot help you. There is no such thing as Grace. You dug your hole, you get out of it is the basic idea in Therevada. Whats more, the idea is that you can do it yourself.
All of that goes against Christian teachings.
Now the modern Therevada as you see today in Sri Lanka is a mixture of Hinduism. In Hinduism, everything is a matter of perception.
Now if you say that Christianity is compatible with Hinduism from Hinduism perspective, you would be very much accurate.
BUT, if you say that Christianity is compatible with Hinduism from a Christian perspective, you would be WRONG.
Hinduism, in its purest form can go so far as to deny the Law of Contradiction. Which is why you will find Hindus who are Atheists to Hindus who are Christian. They don’t think anyone is wrong.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I’ll put my two cents in here:
In MY (repeat, MY) experience, Hinduism is more Pantheistic and Buddhism is both Atheiistic AND Pantheistic at the same time.
Buddhism, though, goes firther than that by really saying IT DOES NOT MATTER. Worry about the Moment and the Now. That is what Buddha taught and why he refused to speculate on the nature of the afterlife. Buddhism is the ultimate religion of the HERE and NOW, like I said some time ago in another thread.
Now that I said my piece, I will withdraw.
In MY (repeat, MY) experience, Hinduism is more Pantheistic and Buddhism is both Atheiistic AND Pantheistic at the same time.
Buddhism, though, goes firther than that by really saying IT DOES NOT MATTER. Worry about the Moment and the Now. That is what Buddha taught and why he refused to speculate on the nature of the afterlife. Buddhism is the ultimate religion of the HERE and NOW, like I said some time ago in another thread.
Now that I said my piece, I will withdraw.
T
tomarin
Guest
I’m hardly qualified to weigh in on this but I will anyhow. I don’t know much about either religion but I am finding Buddhism rather fascinating at the moment.
Isn’t the key to understanding this the idea that at a high philosophical level at least (if not at the level of folk religion) Hinduism and Buddhism are monist, i.e. they believe that the universe is one. Therefore the gods and goddesses that we see in a Hindu or Buddhist temple are merely expressions of a single god principle despite how they might appear to Westerners as discrete beings.
Isn’t the key to understanding this the idea that at a high philosophical level at least (if not at the level of folk religion) Hinduism and Buddhism are monist, i.e. they believe that the universe is one. Therefore the gods and goddesses that we see in a Hindu or Buddhist temple are merely expressions of a single god principle despite how they might appear to Westerners as discrete beings.
T
tomarin
Guest
Sounds a bit like a caricature, to be honest.I’ll put my two cents in here:
In MY (repeat, MY) experience, Hinduism is more Pantheistic and Buddhism is both Atheiistic AND Pantheistic at the same time.
Buddhism, though, goes firther than that by really saying IT DOES NOT MATTER. Worry about the Moment and the Now. That is what Buddha taught and why he refused to speculate on the nature of the afterlife. Buddhism is the ultimate religion of the HERE and NOW, like I said some time ago in another thread.
Now that I said my piece, I will withdraw.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hinduism is panenthestic, not pantheistic. There is a big difference. In panentheism, all things exist WITHIN God and are of God, but God is independent of them, in that He is pure consciousness. He expresses Himself (more accurately, It expresses Itself) as the many, but they are all manifestations of the One. In panentheism, the idea of you or me is an illusion. That is just our nervous systems experiencing themselves, and in turn we take that to be consciousness, but that is really only sentience. For the most part, we fail to see or ignore that which comes from real consciousness in favor of chasing our sense organs, and these we mistake to be what we are. That is panentheism. Pantheism (a term that gets tossed around on this forum a lot) is something different altogether, and maintains that we are all Gods or all God. That is different, in that it requires a “you” or a “me” in the mix. In panentheism, the idea of “you” and “me” are the main problem to be overcome, and the source of all suffering. In panentheism, one has to give up this idea of “you” and “me” in order to find God. We would say that He will never be found until one gives this up, but we of course believe that everyone eventually does figure it out. We believe that one can spend many lifetimes in this religion and that, and all of them are stepping stones to the truth. No phase or stage of development is better than the other.I’ll put my two cents in here:
In MY (repeat, MY) experience, Hinduism is more Pantheistic and Buddhism is both Atheiistic AND Pantheistic at the same time.
Buddhism, though, goes firther than that by really saying IT DOES NOT MATTER. Worry about the Moment and the Now. That is what Buddha taught and why he refused to speculate on the nature of the afterlife. Buddhism is the ultimate religion of the HERE and NOW, like I said some time ago in another thread.
Now that I said my piece, I will withdraw.
Your friend,
Sufjon
W
Wesley7
Guest
I think Buddhism is the inward focus of the god in the self.
- Status