All Buddhists Are Atheists

[KeithBC]

I've seen on different sites that they don't. But then I come here and see much talk of gods... I'm confused, is it a personal belief or universal? Does it apply to the different branches of Buddhism?

Also, let me kill two birds with one stone here.... what a terrible phrase haha. But what branch should I practice? Where do I start?

Individual Buddhists might or might not believe that there are gods. In Buddhism, they are quite unimportant. They are ordinary sentient beings like we are, with the same problems. There is no creator-god in Buddhism.

Practice whichever branch catches you interest. They all lead to the same place. The Buddha taught 84,000 variations on the Dharma just so that there would be a suitable version for everyone.

Regarding the distasteful expression, Jo Stepaniak (vegan cookbook author and philosopher) suggests "to cut two carrots with one knife".

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[steveb1]

My understanding is that Buddhism is non-theistic in the sense that it does not acknowledge a Supreme Being who created the universe and who accepts or rejects human beings after death based on their moral behavior. It is said that Buddha "believed" in local gods and even in Brahma, but he said that these beings are products of dependent origination and will one day lose their high status, due to the universal law of impermancence. He also said that the optimum state is not godhood, but rather Buddhahood. He was thus theoretically in a position to argue even to the high god Brahma that a Buddha is a more "valid" being than even the great Brahma. This is all in terms of "belief in" external deities.

However, in terms of experience, much of what Buddhism says about ultimate states is very close to the "apophatic" descriptions of God from Western mysticism:

Is nirvana God? When anwsered in the negative, this question has led to opposite conclusions... The dispute requires that we take a quick look at what the word "God" means.

... Two meanings must be distinguished for its place in Buddhism to be understood. One meaning of God is that of a personal being who created the universe by deliberate design and periodically intervenes in its natrual causal processes. Defined in this sense, nirvana is not God. The Buddha did not consider it personal because personality requires definition, which nirvana excludes. And though he did not expressly deny creation, he clearly exempted nirvana from responsibility for it. Finally, the Buddha left no room for supernatural intervention in the natural causal processes he saw governing the world. If absence of a personal Creator-God is atheism, Buddhism is atheistic.

There is a second meaning of God, however, which (to distinguish it from the first) has been called the Godhead. The idea of personality is not part of this concept, which appears in mystical traditions throughout the world. When the Buddha delcared, "There is, O monks, an unborn, neither become nor created nor formed. Were there not, there would be no dlieverance from the formed, the made, the compounded," he seemed to be speaking in this tradition. Impressed by similarities between nirvana and the Godhead, Edward Conze has compiled from Buddhist texts a series of attributes that apply to both. We are told that

Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome, that it is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable safety; that it is the real Truth and the supreme Reality; that it is the Good, the supreme goal and the one and only consummation of our life, the eternal hidden and incomprehensible Peace.

We may conclude with Conze that nirvana is not God defined as personal creator, but that it stands sufficiently close to the concept of God as Godhead to warrant the linkage in that sense.

Some ideas to ponder from Buddhism: a Concise Introduction, by Huston Smith and Philip Novak, Harper San Francisco, 2003, pp. 53-54.

[Fu Ri Shin]

Who is talking about validity? We are talking about descriptions of words. Words are necessary to communicate. If when I say "hello" I mean "goodbye", when the vast majority of the people mean "hello", then my words do not convey their recognised meaning. It is not a matter of believing or not believing that "hello" means "hello". It's not a matter of proving an argument that "hello" means "hello" it's just a matter of convention.

If I define God as jellyfish and I say to somebody: "Yesterday, while snorkelling I saw a God." Well it's going to make the conversation pretty bloody difficult isn't it? It's got nothing at all to do with argumentum ad majorem (arguing that something is correct because the majority of the people believe it is correct).

I'm not entirely comprehending the distinction you're making here. Sara has qualified her definition of God, which is apparently not only hers personally but also of the Order of Buddhists Contemplatives. Given that the qualification has been made and understood by the rest of us, there isn't any confusion. There are, however, individuals taking issue with the usage despite the qualification. That would seem to imply that the qualification is immaterial and the usage is nevertheless incorrect or invalid.

Where there is no agreement on definitions, there can be no communication.

There seems to be plenty of communication happening here despite the fact that definitions have not been agreed upon. If anything, the lack of agreement seems to be fueling the communication.

If this is about confusing non-Buddhists by using the word God, well, this hypothetical situation is irrelevant to the current dialogue. In any case, I doubt Sara would confuse any non-Buddhists, given her clarity in this thread.

If someone says, "Tupac is a brilliant musician" and I reply, "If by "brilliant" you mean "dull, repetitious, and obnoxious" then I fully agree." can I then walk away happy in the knowledge that agreement has been reached?

There seems to be a fixation here about definitive agreement and subsequent conformity of vocabulary usage. I think this is too much to ask for. That being said, I liked the Tupac exchange.

[Red Faced Buddha]

You're kind of categorizing Buddhism into one category.Unlike Christianity,Islam,Judaism,etc.Buddhism is divergent.Although there are some Buddhist who are atheist,there are several others who believe in and worship gods.Would you say Pure Land Buddhism is atheistic?What about Shingon,with it's large pantheon of deities.

[Jnana]

Sara has qualified her definition of God, which is apparently not only hers personally but also of the Order of Buddhists Contemplatives.

The Indian Buddhist traditions spent 1500 years hammering out precise tenets, definitions of terms, epistemology, etc. So when someone now wants to use idiosyncratic terms and definitions it's to be expected that they're going to be called on it. Even in one of Rev. Jiyu-Kennett's books there's a forward that acknowledges and attempts to account for her use of theistic language. Her novel linguistic conventions are rather far removed from the mainstream Indian Buddhist thought-world.

[ram peswani]

Complications simplified

1.God/Emptiness/Suniata/Tatav/Advait........All these words have the same
meaning. All these words have Awareness/ Mindfulness as their basic nature.
Just by remaining in Awareness/mindfulness one can get merged in
God/Suniata/ Emptiness/Tatav/Advait.

Arhat/Arihant is in between station for physical body to ultimately merge in
God/Emptiness.etc.................

This is a journey from infinite sea of cosmic energy back to the sea.It is an
endless process going on for eternity.

2. Buddhism is a journey from God/Emptiness..etc..........to Nirvan.
This journey is done in 2-stages.

First stage of Arhat is achieved by Awareness/ Mindfulness in Physical body.
This journey starts from God/Emptiness..etc.....and is called
Therwada/Hinayana journey.

Second stage of Buddhahood is achieved by Wisdom of Lotus Sutra of one
Vehcle. (Mahayana journey).

This journey ends in Nirvan. The purpose of Nirvan is to protect the Wisdom
acquired by various paths travelled by bhoddisattvas to reach Buddhahood for
the future travellers. All the paths remain ready for future travellers to reach
Buddhahood.

Without Nirvan the end will be without Wisdom in God/Emptiness ...etc.

[Sara H]

I want to post here, that I did not, and do not claim to "define" "God".

I would not be so arrogant.

I merely said how I prefer to discuss it, and that it's ok with me if someone uses the word "God".

I actually don't tend to use the word "God" I tend to use "The Eternal", more.

Personal preference.

Words are completely limited in this regard.

The OBC, I am quite sure does not also claim to define the term "God".

Look the fact is, that there is actually more than one meaning ascribed to this word.

The whole "external, creator, deity, etc, etc" definition is the Christian one.

Apparently I did not make that clear enough, but I do not use that definition when referring to that term.

And, also, in actuality, not everyone else does either.

Gnostics, Western Esoteric Tradition practitioners, Jewish Qaballa practioners, New age people(though I'm not endorsing "new ageism", merely noting that they do use the term this way), Some Native Americans, Some Taoists, and, actually, some Catholics (though rare), many protestants, and Quantum Physicists also do not use the "definition" that people here seem to be freaking out about.

The idea that there is only one way of using that word, is simply, patently, false.

And in all honesty, it only seems to be only the most fundamentalist elements, including fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and people professing to be Atheists, who insist that that is the only way to use the word.

I'm sorry, but other people can, and do use it differently, and having a freakout about that because somebody says so does not deny the fact that it is true.
Nor, does it imply a deception or ill intent on the part of people who do use it differently.

May I suggest, broadening your glossary?

In Gassho,

Sara H

[Sara H]

May I also kindly suggest doing one's best to refrain from anger,

and sitting still with any fear or panic before posting.

Take an extra moment, and read carefully what I said before assuming something is implied that is not.

And if possible, please check out that link I posted, as it explains this clearly.
It is a very short article.

There is no attack here.

In Gassho, Friends,

Sara H

[mindyourmind]

If anyone wants a really thorough discussion on what Sara H is referring to as far as the many concepts and definitions of "God" are concerned, have a look at for example Karin Armstrong's "History of God" and / or "The Case for God".

There are as many "Gods" as there are people, it seems.

[gregkavarnos]

Dear Sara H,

Thank you for clarifying your position!

Look the fact is, that there is actually more than one meaning ascribed to this word.

The whole "external, creator, deity, etc, etc" definition is the Christian one.

I agree with both parts of this statement, but it would be naieve to use the word God in a conversation with "Joe Blow" without taking into account that they will most probably be using the term in a way that does not coincide with your definiton. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your defintion, nor am I saying that "Joe Blow" has the valid definition, I am not saying that you wish to deceive all I am saying is that common convention defines the term as... and I am trying to understand why you would not use it in its conventional manner.

May I suggest, broadening your glossary?

Broadening ones glossary does not entail trying to change the commonly accepted meaning of a word, it means adding new words to describe an object/phenomenon. In our case God can be named as: Allah, Yaweh, Theos, Demiurge, Adam Kadmon, Ahriman, El, Saklas, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, Mbombo, Atum, Ptah, Unkulunkulu, Nanabozho (Great Rabbit), Coatlicue, Viracocha, El or the Elohim, Esege Malan, Kamuy, Izanagi and Izanami-no-Mikoto, Marduk, Vishvakarman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, The sons of Borr, Rod, Ipmil, Radien-Attje (Radien Father), Ranginui (the Sky Father) and Papatuanuku (the Earth Mother), Uranus and Gaia, etc...

All of these defintions though have a common characteristic: they define an independently existing creator. This characteristic not is found anywhere in Buddhism (or Jainism for that matter).

[Sara H]

Dear Sara H,

Thank you for clarifying your position!...

...The whole "external, creator, deity, etc, etc" definition is the Christian one.

I agree with both parts of this statement, but it would be naieve to use the word God in a conversation with "Joe Blow" without taking into account that they will most probably be using the term in a way that does not coincide with your definiton. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your defintion, nor am I saying that "Joe Blow" has the valid definition, I am not saying that you wish to deceive all I am saying is that common convention defines the term as... and I am trying to understand why you would not use it in its conventional manner.

You're welcome : )

The answer is because not everyone does use it in that conventional manner.

And it's fine to use it in a non-conventional way, provided you are clear and explain your meaning by doing so.

Such as in the article I posted, she clearly explains what she means by using it.

I agree, if you just randomly threw it out there, without any explanation, or context, it might lead to confusion.

But in the context, and with clear explanation, it's fine.

In Gassho, Friend,

Sara H

[Jnana]

I actually don't tend to use the word "God" I tend to use "The Eternal", more.

And what exactly is "The Eternal" supposed to refer to again?

May I suggest, broadening your glossary?

Rather than suggesting that others need to learn your idiosyncratic language, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to simply learn to use Buddhist conventions?

[Sara H]

" ...wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to simply learn to use Buddhist conventions? "

I believe I quoted a Zen Master. _/|\_


In Gassho,

Sara H

[gregkavarnos]

Sara has qualified her definition of God, which is apparently not only hers personally but also of the Order of Buddhists Contemplatives.

Why would I care about how the OBC defines God? I would no more look to the OBC's definition of God as I would look to the Southern Baptists Convention to define Nirvana. It is not exactly the most intelligent "appeal to authority" now, is it?

[Astus]

Western Buddhists can be theists, atheists and anything else they want, because they generally lack both a traditional and an educated view of Buddhism. This is just individualism in use. And that's how people can't clearly define what Buddhism is or how it relates to other concepts. On the other hand, it is a great event to see the process of changing Buddhism to fit a new culture.

This is also an opportunity to reflect on our own ingrained assumptions and expectations, habitual views that we want things to match. Some prefer colourful gods and buddhas, some want scientific materialism. In my understanding the path to liberation is about recognising and overcoming such attachments. But Buddhism has many facets and gives something to people with all kinds of motivation to satisfy their grasping mind while at the same time teaching something good. That's why belief in God, gods or no god is generally not a problem. Even historically the Buddha left the laity to their own local faiths.

This is a fine article regarding the concept of God in Buddhism: Roger Jackson: Dharmakiirti's refutation of theism

[Sara H]

Sara has qualified her definition of God, which is apparently not only hers personally but also of the Order of Buddhists Contemplatives.

Why would I care about how the OBC defines God? I would no more look to the OBC's definition of God as I would look to the Southern Baptists Convention to define Nirvana. It is not exactly the most intelligent "appeal to authority" now, is it?

Greg, with respect, suggesting that the OBC, which is a well established Soto Zen Buddhist organization, and that for Dharma Transmitted monks of that organization, to use the word "God" when talking about the Unborn, is the intellectual equivalent of the Southern Baptists Convention talking about Nirvana, which is to suggest, that they no nothing about it; is a snide remark, and is not Right Speech.

In Gassho,

Sara H

[gregkavarnos]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If I wanted a defintion of God I would go to a theist, if I wanted a defintion of Buddhist Nirvana I would go to a Buddhist, if I wanted a defintion of "Hindu" kamma I would go to a "Hinduist" ad nauseum... It is really quite simple. Unless, of course, you are insinuating that OBC "Dharma transmitted monks" are omniscient?

PS Which lineage exactly do OBC "monks" uphold and receive their vows and transmissions from?

[Sara H]

I think this may help clear up some confusion on this:

It certainly explains it better than I do.

BUDDHISM AS ATHEISM VS. BUDDHISM AS THEISM
The reader will notice right from the first chapter that Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett is not afraid of using religious terminology, including the word “God”, in teaching Buddhism. While this approach is one which has been adopted from time to time by other eminent Buddhist teachers of our time,*¹ it may initially strike some Buddhists as strange, since one of the fundamental tenets of the Buddha’s teaching was His rejection of the Hindu concept of a personal soul which seeks to unite with a Supreme Soul or God. Zen,in particular among the Buddhist Schools, is known for its use of negative terminology to describe ultimate things, making extensive use of words such as “emptiness”, “the void”, and “nothing from the first”. And Rev. Master Jiyu herself both uses these terms and also notes in other passages in this same volume the problems with the notion of a Supreme Being.Well may the reader wonder what is going on. What is going on are two things: first, Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett was taught, and has passed on, Soto Zen as a religion; second, she was talking in these lectures to Western people with little or no background in the niceties of Buddhist doctrine. As to the former, Zen can be approached in several ways: for instance, it can be entered into as an almost secular philosophy with a supremely rational and self-determined way of life, or it can be seen as a deeply religious practice involving faith, ceremony, precepts, and spiritual intuition. While both approaches are viable, the more secular one has been prevalent in Western books on the subject and has

[*¹ See, for example, Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh, “The Practice of Prayer”
in The Mindfulness Bell, No. 17 (Summer 1996), pp. 1–6.]

given an impression of Buddhism, and especially of Zen, as being atheistic and even nihilistic. Such an impression, however, is an oversimplification and a distortion of the secular approach, which, like the religious approach, is actually attempting to point to something that is beyond the opposites of theism and atheism, eternalism and nihilism. Rev. Master Jiyu lived a Zen that was of the religious sort, and wished both to introduce this possibility to her listeners and to provide them with an antidote to the atheist-nihilist impression, so that they might have a better chance to move beyond the opposites. But what words to use to describe That which is really beyond words? Since she was speaking to an introductory audience, she chose familiar words, religious words. In so doing, she was, in effect, saying, “Don’t be afraid of religion; you can get beyond the opposites within a religious context. Maybe you have been disappointed by the limitations of religion up to now, but those limitations are imposed by us on ourselves; they are not inherent in religious training: religion can free you.” Since Westerners’ backgrounds are in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions, our religious words will have a flavor of those traditions, and thus so did Rev. Master’s words when introducing people to Zen. She also was not trying to convert her audiences to Buddhism: her sole desire was that they should be successful in the religion of their choice, whatever it might be. To this end she would speak at times of ways in which Soto Zen practice could assist in the religious endeavors of other faiths to “find God”. For the reasons mentioned above, when speaking of the ultimate things of Buddhism, Rev. Master Jiyu would often use words like “God”, “the Eternal”, or “the Lord of the

House”, and she would sometimes use such terms in a very personal and familiar way: that does not mean she was an eternalist or a theist. This is somewhat parallel to what Shakyamuni Buddha Himself did in using terms like “the soul” when explaining His Way in common speech; while such usages have sometimes caused confusion over the centuries, they surely do not mean that He was contradicting His own teachings.*² At other times she would use terms like “That Which Is”, “the Unborn”, or “the Immaculacy of Emptiness”; that does not mean she was a nihilist or an atheist. A full discussion of the linguistic and Buddhological complexities of speaking about ultimate things would require a scholarly treatise well beyond the scope of this introduction (and of this editor). Suffice it to say, then, that more is going on in Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett’s approach to this area than meets the eye: she is trying at once to introduce the religious approach to Zen, correct a common misperception, help people to get beyond the opposites, speak of what cannot really be spoken of, and, above all, let people know that they need not be frightened of religion. As to whether Buddhist scholars would criticize her for the possible doctrinal implications of all this (or of any other aspect of her talks), she frankly didn’t give a darn. Indeed, I can almost hear her now, saying what she repeated to me so often, “Daizui, stop being afraid of words and get on with your training!”

Rev. Daizui MacPhillamy,
The Fugen Forest Hermitage
October, 1999.

*²See, for example, S. Z. Aung and Mrs. Rhys-Davids, trans., Points
of Controversy (Katha-Vatthu) (London: Pali Text Society, 1969), p. 27.

-From the introduction of the Roar of the Tigress Volume I
http://www.shastaabbey.org/pdf/bookRoar1.pdf



In Gassho,

Sara H

[gregkavarnos]

So to overcome any misinterpretation of Buddhism as nihilistic (which it is not) she recommends overcompensating towards theism? I fail to see how this will make theistically minded people understand the nature of Buddhism, if anything it will just give them a contorted view of Buddhism. It will make them think they are talking about the same thing when in fact they are not. And anyway, being a Vajrayanaist, fear of religion is right there at the bottom of my list along with fear of furry mammals.

[Astus]

Interesting. She said God, but didn't mean God. She said Eternal, but didn't mean Eternal. Zen is very confusing. Nevertheless, it is now at least clear that there is neither God nor Eternal in Buddhism according to Rev. Jiyu.