Buddhist Agnosticism

UU

Hello all.

I was just wondering is it true that there is room for the belief or disbelief in a Supreme Being in Buddhism as the Buddha never responded to the question "Is there a god?" when asked. Do many buddhists believe in God or remain agnostics or atheists. It's rather interesting as it's one of the few relgions that doesn't have any dogma stating one has to believe in a god. Aso, can one be buddhist and be theist at the same time. Oh the questions, the questions!

Regards,

Daniel

coffee_cake

There are many theist and atheist buddhists.
By default, it's agnostic (if not atheist) because the question is so irrelevant.

The approaches I've read are either :
-yes there are gods but they're subject to the same (albeit much longer) lifecycle as us and can't help with enlightenment, and us being reborn in heaven only lasts so long...
-or yes there are gods and you can pray to them while following some of the buddhism philosophy...
-or there are no gods...
Personally I'm kind of at the first option and kind of not - I guess there might be gods, I just have no intention of worshiping any as I don't think that will help me to become enlightened.

Buddhism is a philosophy as well as a religion; you can take parts of it and mix with most things. So Buddhism does mix with some religions, but in the case of christianity for example, it means you can't get too in-depth with either buddhism or christianity depending on which one you follow more strongly.

I suppose there are many paths to enlightenment. Perhaps if you follow jesus' teachings properly you might be well on your way to it. The same for the Koran. Perhaps there is some slightly different ultimate goal and the buddhist intent of enlightment is just one means to it. Or perhaps buddhism is the most direct attempt at a path towards it.
The same approach is never for everyone. As the dalai lama says, a restaurant that serves only one dish would certainly not suit everyone.

UU

Thanks Bluewolf for that. It is rather interesting how Buddhists' can have different and various approachs to the existance of god, etc.

So then does that mean that Buddhists' have aview that all religions have different paths that still reach a final destination - Enlightenment? Makes sense. The Dalai Lama certainly knows it.

coffee_cake

I don't know about other buddhists, I hadn't really talked about it before with any. I think so. And I suppose the dalai lama does too

There is the universe..

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

So then does that mean that Buddhists' have aview that all religions have different paths that still reach a final destination - Enlightenment? Makes sense. The Dalai Lama certainly knows it.

No UU, it means all People, not all religions, have the potential to achieve enlightenment. IMO Buddhism is not a religion, but is tolerant of other religions up to a point that is determined by the individual. The Buddhist view of gods is also very different. Any of the schools that do believe in Gods believe in Gods that were originally human. There is no creator God to answer to. As a Buddhist, one must walk with both feet firmly planted in this world knowing that all one's actions will have a bearing on if or when one can achieve enlightenment.:)

UU

Asiaprod wrote:

No UU, it means all People, not all religions, have the potential to achieve enlightenment. IMO Buddhism is not a religion, but is tolerant of other religions up to a point that is determined by the individual. The Buddhist view of gods is also very different. Any of the schools that do believe in Gods believe in Gods that were originally human. There is no creator God to answer to. As a Buddhist, one must walk with both feet firmly planted in this world knowing that all one's actions will have a bearing on if or when one can achieve enlightenment.:)

Oh well thanks. That's nice to hear that all people have the potential to achieve enlightenment regardless of their creed. That explains also how one can be Christian, etc. and Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism sounds very nice and tolerant!

Asiaprod

UU wrote:

That explains also how one can be Christian, etc. and Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism sounds very nice and tolerant!

Buddhism does sounds very nice and tolerant, but only up to a point UU. Eventually one runs into conflict and has to make a choice. The most obvious conflict would be the Grace vs Karma issue---this issue cannot be resolved as they are both very different. The christian God could also not exist as he is known since he too would be subject to the laws of cause and effect and Karma which would render him to the role of an impotent god with no power to decide your fate. This should not be mixed up with the very wise sayings attributed to the human Jesus for who's existence, certainly as a human, there is considerable proof.
I think what you may be seeing are moral and ethical similarities which possibly have more to do with society and evolution than with religion.

kuroino

Hi guys, I wanted to add two points to your discussion:

First of all Christianity is much more homogeneous than Buddhism. For example, followers of buddha Amida/Pure Land cult, while still being buddhists, believe in the assistance of this buddha in reaching nirvana, so Amida acts like some kind of god in this respect.

Secondly it is IMHO wrong to think that Christianity and Buddhism has the same goal. The two religions simply operate in different moral coordinates. The most obvious example is their views on suffering.

muesli_offire

Secondly it is IMHO wrong to think that Christianity and Buddhism has the same goal. The two religions simply operate in different moral coordinates. The most obvious example is their views on suffering.

Yeah the suffering (in terms of 'duhkha') bit kinda stumped me. I find it hard to get my head round the whole idea that evrything this side of nirvana is duhkha. Then I was told "well, that's really just from the standpoint of nirvana" - which wasn't much help at all!

Asiaprod

muesli_offire wrote:

Yeah the suffering (in terms of 'duhkha') bit kinda stumped me. I find it hard to get my head round the whole idea that evrything this side of nirvana is duhkha. Then I was told "well, that's really just from the standpoint of nirvana" - which wasn't much help at all!

Great comment, I sure can relate to these kind of answers. Good to know that all the answers to all questions lie within each of us. Always remember that when one is hearing/reading answers these answers are never neutral but opinions shaped by the life condition of the speaker. I have listened to different monks lecture on the same subject and give totally conflicting answers.

Dukkha is interesting and is classified in English as:
Disturbance, irritation, dejection, worry, despair, fear, dread, anguish, anxiety; vulnerability, injury, inability, inferiority; sickness, aging, decay of body and faculties, senility; pain/pleasure; excitement/boredom; deprivation/excess; desire/frustration, suppression; longing/aimlessness; hope/hopelessness; effort, activity, striving/repression; loss, want, insufficiency/satiety; love/lovelessness, friendlessness; dislike, aversion/attraction; parenthood/childlessness; submission/rebellion; decision/indecisiveness, vacillation, uncertainty.

Pretty confusing with so many to choose from. I could nearly condense all these words down into one single word, Life. Dukkha = A Human Life

There is no one English word that adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the term dukkha. Each translation has its own merits in a given context. One very good piece of advise I read was the following: "There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that."
Myself, I translate Dukkha to mean "standing badly," "unsteady," "uneasy" (wiki also mentioned this) in the sense that I continue to be swayed daily by all that is going around me and am still driven by the emotions these events produce in me. The target of course is to reach a life condition in which one is not emotionally swayed by external events, but can see clearly the root cause of the situation and then act in the most appropriate manner.
Hope this helps a little, it is a tough subject to come to grips with. When faced with these kind of expressions or concepts and what they mean I always try to personalize the abstract idea. Instead of asking myself what is Dukkha, I ask myself how do I exhibit/experience Dukkha in my life. Once I know this, I can then begin to see how others exhibit/experience Dukkha in their lives. And so on:)
Next time you meet a monk ask him to explain Nirvana for you, then you can explain it to me

kuroino

What I actually meant is not dukkha as an overall term, but whatever we consider to be the meaning of the English word "suffering". Just as an aspect of dukkha, I would say. The christians look at it as at something purifying and sometimes even desirable I would say, while the buddhist clearly don't see it in that way.

So the "direction" in the moral coordinates of a buddhist is away from suffering, while the case of a christian person it is through suffering. These are two quite different directions, don't you think?

I mentioned all of it because I think, that the presence or absence of God is not the question on which the conflict arises within the person who tries to follow both religions (let me call Buddhism a religion for now, please). The conflict arises from the goals and the ways to achieve them. So you can sympathise with both religions, but you could not consistently follow them both. Even if you believe in the existence of the Christian god.

coffee_cake

UU wrote:

Oh well thanks. That's nice to hear that all people have the potential to achieve enlightenment regardless of their creed. That explains also how one can be Christian, etc. and Buddhist at the same time. Buddhism sounds very nice and tolerant!

I said you could mix them if you didn't get very in-depth with either.
You can't mix them thoroughly, not by a long shot.

Asiaprod

kuroino wrote:

The christians look at it [suffering] as something purifying and sometimes even desirable I would say, while the buddhist clearly don't see it in that way.

Yes, in general I would agree. To a Buddhist suffering is just a part of life and we practise to be able to avoid suffereing.

So the "direction" in the moral coordinates of a buddhist is away from suffering, while the case of a christian person it is through suffering. These are two quite different directions, don't you think?

Indeed I agree.

The conflict arises from the goals and the ways to achieve them. So you can sympathise with both religions, but you could not consistently follow them both. Even if you believe in the existence of the Christian god.

Again I agree. I have consistently emphasized the fact that I consider myself to be Atheist. It is just not possible for a God to function in the Buddhist world. Any God would be subject to the laws of cause and effect and would be in no postion to have any say in what happens to a person who is also opperating under the same law. Christianity and Buddhism do appear to share some ethics and morals, but they are opposed in their goals. You can borrow aspects of each, but you cannot follow both.

coffee_cake

Yes, in general I would agree. To a Buddhist suffering is just a part of life and we practise to be able to avoid suffereing.

I read "the man from autumn" yesterday - it went on a little bit about differing views on suffering. Quite an interesting read. A novel, but a fairly philosophical one written by a psychologist. One of the main characters is a tibetan buddhist.

Again I agree. I have consistently emphasized the fact that I consider myself to be Atheist. It is just not possible for a God to function in the Buddhist world. Any God would be subject to the laws of cause and effect and would be in no postion to have any say in what happens to a person who is also opperating under the same law. Christianity and Buddhism do appear to share some ethics and morals, but they are opposed in their goals. You can borrow aspects of each, but you cannot follow both.

Quite, though I would say that your points on gods fall under one of my descriptions in my first post - that there is a possibility for a belief in gods, it's just that there's no point in worshiping them.
As for opposed in their goals, I wouldn't say they are that opposed. Pure Land seems to be a little similiar, no?
Again, I think you should all read that book I mentioned
http://www.themanfromautumn.com/ManfAut/

maitri

bluewolf wrote:

Again, I think you should all read that book I mentioned
http://www.themanfromautumn.com/ManfAut/

I'd really like to read that! Maybe I'll make that my autumn reading.

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I read "the man from autumn" yesterday - it went on a little bit about differing views on suffering. Quite an interesting read. A novel, but a fairly philosophical one written by a psychologist. One of the main characters is a tibetan buddhist.

Thanks for the turn on, will look out for it.

Quite, though I would say that your points on gods fall under one of my descriptions in my first post - that there is a possibility for a belief in gods, it's just that there's no point in worshiping them.

Hum, I have stated very clearly that I do not believe in Gods in the same sense as a Christian views God, but I do respect and think no less of a persons who does believe in them. I have always judged people on what they are, not what they believe. I fully understand erecting statues and alters as a mark of respect to acknowledge someone who has led an exemplary life, but Gods I have trouble with. I believe a person called Jesus did exist and said some great things, not all of which were original. Purely for debate, what would a God's function be in Buddhist terms and why would I worship one?

As for opposed in their goals, I wouldn't say they are that opposed. Pure Land seems to be a little similiar, no?

Interesting point, could you expound a little more on why you think they are not that opposed.

coffee_cake

Asiaprod wrote:

Hum, I have stated very clearly that I do not believe in Gods in the same sense as a Christian views God, but I do respect and think no less of a persons who does believe in them. I have always judged people on what they are, not what they believe. I fully understand erecting statues and alters as a mark of respect to acknowledge someone who has led an exemplary life, but Gods I have trouble with. I believe a person called Jesus did exist and said some great things, not all of which were original. Purely for debate, what would a God's function be in Buddhist terms and why would I worship one?

Em, there wouldn't really be one... you'd have to ask some of the theistic buddhists for that

Interesting point, could you expound a little more on why you think they are not that opposed.

Mention of suffering aside, the overall point is that the self in its current form is not what it should be and can be improved. I suppose.

John Doe

I could have the wrong end of the stick, but is the basic answer from Bluewolf that God/God's aren't important anyway, from a Buddhist perspective?

coffee_cake

Yeah, pretty much