Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:00 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 350 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
deepbluehum wrote:
Buddha said there's no creator.


No, Buddha declared this topic as one of the "imponderables":

Quote:
Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
Nighthawk wrote:
Jnana wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:
See also these quotes from Dhamma Wheel: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11082

Statements that disparage, mock, or otherwise poke fun at other belief systems on a Buddhist discussion forum -- as do many in the above linked thread -- are reprehensible and deserve to be censured.

Seconded.


Thirded.

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
Huseng wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:
Theravada Buddhism seems more atheistic or at least non-theistic. As for Mahayana Buddhism, well you guys have the Trikaya concept which sounds pretty close to some kind of God-concept.


The ancient Mahāsāṃghikas had the same idea about the Buddha -- he being a transcendental force rather than a flesh and blood sage. That was pre-Mahāyāna, too.

As this thread: Path to Buddhahood demonstrates, there are secular revisionists who don't even accept the Theravāda teachings on a buddha's knowledge, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
viniketa wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Buddha said there's no creator.


No, Buddha declared this topic as one of the "imponderables":

Quote:
Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


You are forgetting this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And this

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Also your quote is denying a creator.


Last edited by deepbluehum on Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:18 am
Posts: 271
Location: Singapore
doesn't matter, it's the result that matter.

"Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught."
AN 3.72 - Ajivaka Sutta

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html
(14) Great Brahmas (Maha brahma)
One of this realm's most famous inhabitants is the Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe (DN 11).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... #bigbrahma
:thinking:

_________________
_/\_
Amituofo!

"Enlightenment is to turn around and see MY own mistake, Other's mistake is also my mistake. Others are right even if they are wrong. i'm wrong even if i'm right. " - Master Chin Kung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
deepbluehum wrote:
You are forgetting this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Also your quote is denying a creator.


No, the Acintita Sutta does not deny a creator. I do not forget the suttas that make fun of Bhrama as creator.

In the end, as Buddha indicated, this imponderable is not worth our time...

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
viniketa wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
You are forgetting this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Also your quote is denying a creator.


No, the Acintita Sutta does not deny a creator. I do not forget the suttas that make fun of Bhrama as creator.

In the end, as Buddha indicated, this imponderable is not worth our time...

:namaste:


No he's saying that creation is not ponderable. As the suttas I cited point out, he is mocking the notion of a creator. It doesn't mean he's not taking a position and therefore there is possibly a creator.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
David N. Snyder wrote:
Theravada Buddhism seems more atheistic or at least non-theistic.


The Buddha declared himself "brahma bhuto" (become Brahma) in the Aggañña Sutta.

David N. Snyder wrote:
As for Mahayana Buddhism, well you guys have the Trikaya concept which sounds pretty close to some kind of God-concept.


In Vajrayana too, the body is the deity.

Quote:
An all-powerful-creator-God with a capital G however, is not found in any Buddhist tradition, as far as I know.


See the Tantra of the All Creating King.

If you take all these traditions together you come to understand that the mind is the all-powerful God and karma is his hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 805
deepbluehum wrote:
viniketa wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
You are forgetting this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Also your quote is denying a creator.


No, the Acintita Sutta does not deny a creator. I do not forget the suttas that make fun of Bhrama as creator.

In the end, as Buddha indicated, this imponderable is not worth our time...

:namaste:


No he's saying that creation is not ponderable. As the suttas I cited point out, he is mocking the notion of a creator. It doesn't mean he's not taking a position and therefore there is possibly a creator.


Actually, the Brahmajala Sutta would be the key sutta to quote, since in it, the Buddha describes the belief in a Creator God to be the first wrong view of Ekaccasassatavāda (partial eternalism):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html
Quote:
38. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'

43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.

44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

_________________
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:52 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
To me, devas don't qualify as gods at all. They're just people trapped in samasara like us, still going round and round the wheel, up and down through the realms. To even begin to qualify as gods they'd have to attain full Buddhahood, then add omnipotence. But we already agreed that Buddha wasn't God, and I'm certainly not going to elevate samsaric beings above Buddha.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:37 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Nighthawk wrote:
Call us purelanders whatever you like. Labels have zero importance. The only thing that will ever matter is freedom from the bondage of samsara and how to achieve that.
Your outburst is a little paranoid. I imagine (knowing Catmoon) that he is genuinely interested in a Pureland practitioners opinion on this issue. That he was not mocking, or making fun. If you are a Pureland practitioner do you wish to offer your opinion, rather than getting all defensive over nothing?
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
catmoon wrote:
To me, devas don't qualify as gods at all. They're just people trapped in samasara like us, still going round and round the wheel, up and down through the realms. To even begin to qualify as gods they'd have to attain full Buddhahood, then add omnipotence.

Your criteria for what qualifies as a god is too narrow, which is likely why you mistakenly equate Buddhism with Atheism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Jnana wrote:
Your criteria for what qualifies as a god is too narrow, which is likely why you mistakenly equate Buddhism with Atheism.
No matter how much one broadens ones criteria as to what qualifies as a god this does not change the fac that gods are samsaric beings.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
Jnana wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:
See also these quotes from Dhamma Wheel: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11082

Statements that disparage, mock, or otherwise poke fun at other belief systems on a Buddhist discussion forum -- as do many in the above linked thread -- are reprehensible and deserve to be censured.


Personally, I find a lot of those comments insightful, accurate, and/or humorous, so I censure your censure of their censure!

edit: We aren't talking about individual's beliefs here but an ideology based on power and which has been used to justify much suffering and inequality.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am
Posts: 821
gregkavarnos wrote:
Your outburst is a little paranoid. I imagine (knowing Catmoon) that he is genuinely interested in a Pureland practitioners opinion on this issue. That he was not mocking, or making fun.

I wasn't being paranoid nor do I think catmoon was mocking or poking fun.
Quote:
If you are a Pureland practitioner do you wish to offer your opinion, rather than getting all defensive over nothing?
:namaste:

I already stated my opinion in that labels have zero importance. I find the question to be a bit nonsensical. If I had to pick a label though, I would go with non theist as Amida Buddha is neither the creator nor is he omnipotent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Nighthawk wrote:
I already stated my opinion in that labels have zero importance. I find the question to be a bit nonsensical. If I had to pick a label though, I would go with non theist as Amida Buddha is neither the creator nor is he omnipotent.
Thank you! :smile:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
gregkavarnos wrote:
Jnana wrote:
Your criteria for what qualifies as a god is too narrow, which is likely why you mistakenly equate Buddhism with Atheism.
No matter how much one broadens ones criteria as to what qualifies as a god this does not change the fac that gods are samsaric beings.
:namaste:


But if you accept their existence you are a polytheist.

I think there is more at stake here than mere definitions.

This trend to label Buddhist as "atheist" is a result of the ongoing New Atheist movement to discredit and cripple their opponents and there is understandably perhaps some good reasons for wanting their favour and approval as they come to command both public education systems and academic orthodoxy. If you are not on their good side, then you stand to lose prestige and credibility in the eyes of many people.

However, in order to really render any Buddhist tradition as atheist would mean sanitizing it of many teachings that the Buddha himself is on record as having taught. In countless canonical scriptures he speaks of gods as actually existing and at times he would interact with them. Some might suggest this is mere folklore or fiction added in at a later date, but they should bear in mind that in our present world plenty of Buddhists can attest to having the same experiences with devas and so forth.

If this makes any self-identifying Buddhist uncomfortable they need to evaluate their own level of knowledge and wisdom regarding such things. Namely, do you think you know better than the Buddha and countless masters who have lived over the last twenty-five centuries?

To casually purge Buddhism of traditional teachings that have existed for twenty-five centuries is not only a sign of hubris, but a violation of one's refuge vows.

Buddhism stands to lose a lot by being labelled atheist as people casually go along with the saṃsāric flow of contemporary society.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Posts: 211
The other side is that there are a lot of cultural additions that are unnecessary to Buddhist practice. No one needs to believe in gods, spirits, and magic in order to practice the dharma. A modern person does not need to suppress their modern knowledge in order to practice.

Huseng wrote:
To casually purge Buddhism of traditional teachings that have existed for twenty-five centuries is not only a sign of hubris, but a violation of one's refuge vows.

Buddhism stands to lose a lot by being labelled atheist as people casually go along with the saṃsāric flow of contemporary society.

_________________
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
futerko wrote:
We aren't talking about individual's beliefs here but an ideology based on power and which has been used to justify much suffering and inequality.

Firstly, who's this "we"? Secondly, members of a religious discussion forum disparaging or mocking other religions is very lame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
Matt J wrote:
The other side is that there are a lot of cultural additions that are unnecessary to Buddhist practice.

And how are you going to differentiate between what you consider to be cultural additions and what are essential practices? For example, the common preliminaries taught in Tibetan Buddhism place considerable emphasis on contemplating rebirth and the suffering of the saṃsāric realms. This isn't "cultural baggage," it's foundational to the Buddhadharma.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 350 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kunzang and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group