Do Buddhist believe in god?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

sunyavadin wrote:
Tiltbillings wrote:when asked to provide sutta texts to uphold, support, and maintain your claim of this "Dhamma, 'that which upholds . . . .", none were forth coming
The fact that the word 'dharma' (or dhamma) is derived from the root dhr - meaning, 'to hold', and is generally translated as 'moral law', is not something in the Buddhist scriptures. It is the meaning of the term. There is also the word 'adhamma', which means contrary to the dhamma.
How a word means is based upon how the word is used, which is in the suttas.
As for 'the dhamma upholding and supporting the teaching', the Buddha said at the time of the awakening: "What if I were to dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I have fully awakened, honoring and respecting it?" (SN 6.2) (as distinct from any Brahmas, Maras, Devas, and so on.)
That certainly does not support your contention.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:The problem is, Cittasanto, in reading your writing it is not always easy getting what you are trying to say. Also, you are simply going around in circles with all of this, which is your choice, but it is kind of a waste of time. The fact of the matter is that "atheism" does not have a hard and fast definition that would not allow us to talk about Buddhist athesim in the ways I have indicated above.
circles? you should realize I am responding to what you say, so look at yourself first.

although just to correct myself I also realised I used the term pantheist which is something different to a polytheist which I meant to use.

However I do believe I have found a compromise, and one I was unaware of/forgotten about & not known it being used in regard to Buddhism
Non-theistic
its benefit is that it does away with one aspect of theism (namely the connotations of theology which not all theistic religions have in the way christianity does) and doesn't sugest that there are no gods in Buddhism, and as the wiki article quotes Pema Chödrön
The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by daverupa »

tiltbillings wrote:How a word means is based upon how the word is used, which is in the suttas.
This is worth emphasizing, as it pertains to the word 'deva' as well as 'dhamma' and a host of others.

For example, suppose we didn't know English, but we had some text fragments and we were puzzling over the word "interesting". The definition of this word, which we don't know, in this case happens to be "drawing attention" due to how it is used. But if we were to look at the word origin from Latin, we would see "interesse", lit. 'to be between', from interess 'a thing between'.

Now, going from "between" to "drawing attention" is possible, but arcane and liable to mistake without essential context clues. Word origin is only part of the story with words.

(A useful rule of thumb is to consider that it is never words which have good translations, but sentences.)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
sunyavadin wrote:The fact that the word 'dharma' (or dhamma) is derived from the root dhr - meaning, 'to hold', and is generally translated as 'moral law', is not something in the Buddhist scriptures. It is the meaning of the term. There is also the word 'adhamma', which means contrary to the dhamma.
How a word means is based upon how the word is used, which is in the suttas.
not to mention the root doesn't always indicate the precise meaning, dhṛ also means support, and is not generally translated as 'moral law' that is only one of the possible translations for Dhamma, "thing" "reality" "phenomena" "teaching" "scriptures" are all possible translations.
Roots also do not give the precise meaning of a word, they only give an indication, the context a word is in would also influence what is being meant by the word.
although the PED points us to Dhāreti which means
1. to carry, bear, wear, possess; to put on, to bring, give
2. to hold back, restrain
3. to bear in mind, know by heart, understand:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Wesley1982
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Wesley1982 »

It seems like Buddhism is polytheistic...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The problem is, Cittasanto, in reading your writing it is not always easy getting what you are trying to say. Also, you are simply going around in circles with all of this, which is your choice, but it is kind of a waste of time. The fact of the matter is that "atheism" does not have a hard and fast definition that would not allow us to talk about Buddhist atheism in the ways I have indicated above.
circles? you should realize I am responding to what you say, so look at yourself first.
Since you posted first and I responded to you . . . .
However I do believe I have found a compromise, and one I was unaware of/forgotten about & not known it being used in regard to Buddhism
Non-theistic
I have no problem with that, except you would need a book to explain what it means, but, oh, look, it has already been done: BUDDHISM: A Non-Theistic Religion by Helmuth Von Glasenapp, a very good work, worth reading.
its benefit is that it does away with one aspect of theism (namely the connotations of theology which not all theistic religions have in the way christianity does) and doesn't sugest that there are no gods in Buddhism,
Non-theistic, especially the way you have been using the word god(s), certainly does suggest there are no gods at all in Buddhism. The locution Buddhist atheism, on the other hand speaks to the issue that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in Buddhism. It says nothing about the mortal "gods."

and as the wiki article quotes Pema Chödrön
The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
The problem with this, however, is that in Indian Buddhism the idea of a creator god was beat up and rejected quite strongly. The mortal "gods" were pretty much left alone.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:However I do believe I have found a compromise, and one I was unaware of/forgotten about & not known it being used in regard to Buddhism
Non-theistic
I have no problem with that, except you would need a book to explain what it means, but, oh, look, it has already been done: BUDDHISM: A Non-Theistic Religion by Helmuth Von Glasenapp, a very good work, worth reading.
A book?
Pema seamed to do a good job in less.
although I don't know of the trustworthyness of the link you give (not in terms of viruses...) so I wont be reading that doc sorry.
its benefit is that it does away with one aspect of theism (namely the connotations of theology which not all theistic religions have in the way christianity does) and doesn't sugest that there are no gods in Buddhism,
Non-theistic, especially the way you have been using the word god(s), certainly does suggest there are no gods at all in Buddhism. The locution Buddhist atheism, on the other hand speaks to the issue that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in Buddhism. It says nothing about the mortal "gods."[/quote]
how have I been using it?
I have been refering to a being, so I do not see how I have used it is such a way that would negate them.
although Atheism as in the linited scope (i think the third or fourth) explanation you give earlier would be a polytheist, polydeist, agnostic, i.e they either believe in multiple or don't give a thought to it. I believe one would be hard pushed to find an atheist who would acually believe in multiple gods and not the monotheistic model.

although I remember in one of Venerable Analayos lectures (first intake) he mentions how the refutation doesn't refute a deistic, or pan-deistic god although that being would probably fall in the creator god category talked about a few posts back, not really payed more attention to it other than enough to spring to mind.
and as the wiki article quotes Pema Chödrön
The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
The problem with this, however, is that in Indian Buddhism the idea of a creator god was beat up and rejected quite strongly. The mortal "gods" were pretty much left alone.
although they weren't regarded as a support or refuge.
there are references to appeasing the gods through offerings (one in another thread live at the moment) and I have mentioned a few times in the past the Karaniya metta sutta being an example through the origin story, but then it isn't a strong suggestion by any stretch.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:However I do believe I have found a compromise, and one I was unaware of/forgotten about & not known it being used in regard to Buddhism
Non-theistic
I have no problem with that, except you would need a book to explain what it means, but, oh, look, it has already been done: BUDDHISM: A Non-Theistic Religion by Helmuth Von Glasenapp, a very good work, worth reading.
A book?
Pema seamed to do a good job in less.
Not really. Not at all, actually, particularly when one considers how the idea of a god was dealt with in India, where Buddhists had to contend with god religions. As I said, the Buddha and those doctors of the faith that came after him beat up and rejected the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos.
I have been refering to a being, so I do not see how I have used it is such a way that would negate them.
You have been referring to beings, gods, which you tell us that the word theism would encompass because there are many differing ideas of god(s) and that atheism would negate any acknowledgement of those gods within the Buddhist suttas. It would seems, then, that to say Buddhism is non-theistic would suggest that there are no gods at all in the Buddhist suttas.
although Atheism as in the linited scope (i think the third or fourth) explanation you give earlier would be a polytheist, polydeist, agnostic, i.e they either believe in multiple or don't give a thought to it. I believe one would be hard pushed to find an atheist who would acually believe in multiple gods and not the monotheistic model.
I have used atheism strictly and only in terms of the idea of omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos as well as in terms of the idea of a self-existing, eternal being(s).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Pema seamed to do a good job in less.
Not really. Not at all, actually, particularly when one considers how the idea of a god was dealt with in India, where Buddhists had to contend with god religions. As I said, the Buddha and those doctors of the faith that came after him beat up and rejected the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos.

So her comment does not take the Buddhist attitude of gods into account?
You have been referring to beings, gods, which you tell us that the word theism would encompass because there are many differing ideas of god(s) and that atheism would negate any acknowledgement of those gods within the Buddhist suttas. It would seems, then, that to say Buddhism is non-theistic would suggest that there are no gods at all in the Buddhist suttas.
as I have said
its benefit is that it does away with one aspect of theism (namely the connotations of theology which not all theistic religions have in the way christianity does) and doesn't sugest that there are no gods in Buddhism
This actually moves the importance away from the theological aspect, which was the one thing I had a problem with theism as a term.
so maybe a more precise "non-theistic approach" would be better.
I have used atheism strictly and only in terms of the idea of omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos as well as in terms of the idea of a self-existing, eternal being(s).
you are either being strict or inclusive which is it?

you have only argued from one (which only addressed the view of a being claiming such characteristics) not of the existence of the being making the claim, other than them being delusional.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote: . . .
Keeping this simple, when asked about God and its role within Buddhism, we could either say that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, or we could talk about Buddhist atheism. In either case, either position would need a fair amount of exposition to make clear what is meant, given that neither locution "Buddhism is non-theistic” or “Buddhist atheism” by themselves tell us much of anything useful.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: . . .
Keeping this simple, when asked about God and its role within Buddhism, we could either say that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, or we could talk about Buddhist atheism. In either case, either position would need a fair amount of exposition to make clear what is meant, given that neither locution "Buddhism is non-theistic” or “Buddhist atheism” by themselves tell us much of anything useful.
can you address the other questions please!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: . . .
Keeping this simple, when asked about God and its role within Buddhism, we could either say that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, or we could talk about Buddhist atheism. In either case, either position would need a fair amount of exposition to make clear what is meant, given that neither locution "Buddhism is non-theistic” or “Buddhist atheism” by themselves tell us much of anything useful.
can you address the other questions please!
They already have been addressed, more than once.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:They already have been addressed, more than once.
So Pema Chondron quote is not accurate why?
sorry you have by far not addressed this
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:They already have been addressed, more than once.
So Pema Chondron quote is not accurate why?
This quote?:

The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
Non-theism suggests that there are no gods of any sort within Buddhism.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:They already have been addressed, more than once.
So Pema Chondron quote is not accurate why?
This quote?:

The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
Non-theism suggests that there are no gods of any sort within Buddhism.
That was a responce to something else earlier!
and as the wiki article quotes Pema Chödrön
The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
The problem with this, however, is that in Indian Buddhism the idea of a creator god was beat up and rejected quite strongly. The mortal "gods" were pretty much left alone.
You were only specific with the quote in this regard and what I said with you responce on non-theism, which was being discussed.
you had a problem with the depiction of god/s specifically with what Pema said, and this is what I have been responding to with regard to Pema Chodron.

Also have you been specific or general with your use of the term atheist?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply