Jump to content

Why Buddhist are atheist??

Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I think the reason why buddhist are atheist is because when devotee's went to mahatama buddha and asked him about Akaal..he smiled....didn't say anything from that point sect of atheist buddhist started because they thought "buddha" smiled because there is no God but only nirvana.

When you ask other buddhist though, they say he smiled because there is nothing to tell....vahiguroo is soo beautiful and full pormanand that when you think of him....no words can explain him fully 100%...!

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mehtab Singh

Mehtab Singh

Posted
Posted

I think the reason why buddhist are atheist is because when devotee's went to mahatama buddha and asked him about Akaal..he smiled....didn't say anything from that point sect of atheist buddhist started because they thought "buddha" smiled because there is no God but only nirvana.

When you ask other buddhist though, they say he smiled because there is nothing to tell....vahiguroo is soo beautiful and full pormanand that when you think of him....no words can explain him fully 100%...!

Thats 100% true! I read a book by Osho "The True Name" and he tells the same thing, only explains a bit more.
0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nectar

Nectar

Posted
Posted

ice cream has egg :evil: ...nahi chahidi :twisted: ...lolll...juz kidding...

well i will have to search for it...will do it and type it out for reading...its not a whole lot...maybe a few more lines, i think...but make sure u remind me :P ...

Mehtabji if u dont want that icecream...I will have it...Give it to me...u kaddu... :twisted:

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Dalvir

Dalvir

Posted
Posted

i had once asked a friend who was buddhist a quesiton, i asked "what is the point of reaching nirvana if there is no God to be there to give you something, hwat is nirvana annd how was it create without a creator?" she didnt know the answer, if any of you do please enlighten, becuase i dont know the answer, if there is i would love to know it

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Pheena

Pheena

Posted
Posted

Please share with us what else did he share?? Please please mehtab ji, i ll buy you ice cream :LOL:

As long as you feel you have known God, you are under an illusion -- you err.

For whatever you have known cannot be God, whatever you have measured cannot be God, whatever you have fathomed cannot be God. You must be diving into some lake; you are nowhere near the ocean. You have gone into some insignificant valley; you have not known the abysmal depths where falling is endless. You must have climbed some nondescript hill on the outskirts of your village; you have no knowledge of His Everest where climbing is impossible. We have succeeded in climbing the Everest of the Himalayas, though with great difficulty, but to scale His Everest is unthinkable.

Why is it impossible? Try to understand how inconceivable it is to gauge or understand God.... we are a part of Him. How can a part know the whole? I can hold everything of this world within my hand, except myself. How can I hold myself in my own hand? My eyes can see everything under the sun, but how can they look at me? They cannot see me completely for the simple reason that they are a part of me, and the part can never know the whole; it may get glimpses but not the complete picture.

The difficulty is that we are a part of this vast expanse. Had we not been a part of God we would have known Him; had we been distinct and separate from Him, we could have gone around Him and investigated. But we are a part of Him; we are His very heartbeat, His breath! How can we go around Him? How can we grasp Him? Man is but a particle of sand in this vast expanse, a drop in the ocean.

How can this one lonely drop contain the whole ocean? How can it know the entire ocean?

This is very interesting: the drop is in the ocean and the drop is the ocean. So in a very profound sense, the drop knows the ocean, because the ocean is not different from the drop. And yet in another sense it cannot know the ocean because the ocean is not separate from it. This is the biggest paradox of religion: we know God and yet we do not know Him at all. How can this be when He throbs in us and we in Him? We are not far from Him; in fact there isn't the slightest distance between Him and us.

So in a sense we know Him well; and yet we do not know Him at all, because we are a part of Him. How can a part know the whole? We dive in Him, we float in Him, live in Him; at times we forget Him and sometimes we remember Him. Sometimes we feel ourselves very near Him and sometimes far. In clear moments we feel that we have known Him. When the heart gets over-filled, we know that we have known, because we have recognized Him. Wisdom comes, then again it is lost and there is deep darkness. Then we falter again. But this very state of knowing and not knowing is the basic condition of a religious person.

When anyone questioned Buddha about God he would keep silent. What could he say? Contradictions cannot be spoken about. If he were to say, "I know," he would be making a mistake, because who can say that he knows? And if Buddha were to say he did not know, he would be making a false statement, because who knew more than he!

Early one morning a very learned pundit came to Buddha to ask about God. Buddha remained silent. Soon the pundit left. Ananda asked Buddha why he had not answered, since the pundit was a man who knew a great deal and deserved an answer. Buddha said, "Just because he is deserving, it is all the more difficult to give him an answer. If I said I have known Him, it would be wrong, because without knowing Him completely how could I claim to know Him at all? I I said I did not, that too would be false. All claims derive from the ego and the ego can never know Him. Since he is deserving and intelligent and understanding, I had to keep silent. He understood. Did you not see him bow before he left?"

Then Ananda remembered how the pundit was so grateful that he bowed reverently at Buddha's feet. "How wonderful! Did he really understand? That never occurred to me."

Buddha replied, "Horses are of three types. The first type you hit with a whip and they will move, inch by inch. The second type you need not whip; just threaten them and they move. For the third, you need not even crack the whip; just the shadow of the whip sets them going. The pundit belongs to the third type. I had only to show him the shadow and he started on the journey."

Words are the whips; silence is the shadow. Words are needed, because it

is the rare horse that responds to the shadow of the whip. The condition of one who knows is such that he cannot say he knows, and he cannot say he does not know.

He is in between knowing and not knowing.

Nanak says He is without end. Whatever you say of Him is too little. You keep on saying and yet you find that there is so much to say that you have hardly said anything. All expressions regarding Him are incomplete. And all scriptures are incomplete; they are meant for the horses who don't respond to the shadow of the whip.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mystical

Mystical

Posted
Posted

I think the reason why buddhist are atheist is because when devotee's went to mahatama buddha and asked him about Akaal..he smiled....didn't say anything from that point sect of atheist buddhist started because they thought "buddha" smiled because there is no God but only nirvana.

When you ask other buddhist though, they say he smiled because there is nothing to tell....vahiguroo is soo beautiful and full pormanand that when you think of him....no words can explain him fully 100%...!

Wow dats nice.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
sukinder

sukinder

Posted
Posted

All,

I was lead here this time via a post on a Buddhist list belonging to B. Samahita. The poster wrote to invite any learned Buddhist to write about Buddhism here. I am far from being well versed in the Teachings, in fact I read next to nothing directly, almost all my knowledge is through other people’s writings on a certain discussion list. I however feel that I should comment on this matter, as I do not agree with the conclusion made.

According to my understanding, there is no place for the concept of a ‘creator God’ in the Buddha’s teachings.

There are thousands of Suttas (Sutra) and one picks out this single one (I being poorly read in this regard, do not even know of the existence of such a Sutta) where the question of existence/ non existence of God is put forward and the response is silence/smile, ( I think what follows this are just someone’s additions. The phrasing being quite different from the usual way Suttas are presented) . If indeed there is such a sutta, isn’t it obvious that it would take precisely a ‘Theist’ to do just this and come up with the kind of conclusion that is made? What was further implied is that those who formed part of this 2500 years of tradition, were simple minded people looking at exactly this one single Sutta to justify a preconceived bias, i.e. not to believe in God?!

There are many ways to respond to questions and on occasion the Buddha would be silent precisely because it was perceived that the questioner was strongly attached to his views and any categorical answer would be misinterpreted and lead him further into mental complications.

The whole of the Buddha’s teachings (I refer to the Theravada tradition only) is aimed at understanding what is experienced through the 5 sense doors and the mind. The uniqueness of the Buddha’s teachings rests upon the understanding of Anatta or Non-self. The experiences through these five sense doors and the mind at any given moment is understood as the ONLY reality, leaving aside Nibbana (Nirvana). In fact it could be said that at a moment of say “seeingâ€, that this is the only “world†existing, and this is so fleeting (lasting shorter that 1 billionth of a second) that the ‘world’ we experience has disintegrated already. – I know this is hard to comprehend, but bear with me for a moment-.

The point is that with just these being the only “reality†at any moment, “ideas†about people and things and their relationship to one another are just “conceptsâ€, a product of thinking. There is nothing wrong with the thinking process per se; however, the problem is that when we have no understanding about the elements of experience and hence differentiating between concept and reality, we end up taking the ‘concepts’ to be real! And around these, theories about existence/non-existence based on one’s inclination to annihilationist or eternalist views, arise and thrive. In fact these abound in the world and are taught and sought after with so much passion all in the name of the quest for ‘Truthâ€. :-/

I came across this Sutta where the Buddha seem to be more clear about his position in this matter of God, I quote below only some relevant part:

<<<<

Tittha Sutta

Sectarians

“Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that— when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people—even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?......................................

“Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’ When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. >>>>

The above may not seem like much of proof of his position, however, the Sutta does not end here but goes on to describe what in fact should be considered true and to be contemplated, i.e. the Elements, the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination and finally the Noble Eightfold Path.

Reading this and thousands of other Suttas, it becomes inconceivable that the Buddha would believe in a God. Besides the teachings about conditionality and particularly Kamma (karma) would be quite meaningless when placed along with this idea of a creator God, or Tao or whatever one may postulate along these lines. Also if Buddha had believed in God, then there should be some suggestions of the concept of “grace†and such, and there is none!

A serious student of the Buddha’s teachings seeks to “understand†and he does not go about believing or not believing in things. The Buddha himself encourage all to “test the Truth†and stated that what is needed to be known is present in this body of ours, i.e. the moment to moment experiences through the 5 sense doors and the mind. I never find myself thinking if whether there is God or not, in fact it seems that those who call themselves “atheistâ€, are in reality uncertain of their positions. So no, correctly understanding the Buddha’s teachings, even being labeled ‘atheist’ is wrong, how much more so the suggestion of being ‘theist’. These considerations do not even factor in one’s day to day experiences.

That said, the truth about “conditionality†does however allow for what one might call gods, ghosts, celestial beings and so on. These are based on the fact of the nature of mind and its relation to matter. What we can see here in this conventional world, earth, are animals and humans, only two such beings. But limiting ourselves to outward appearance and an inherent tendency to nihilism, one should be careful not to dismiss the possibility of other beings on other planes of existence, the reality of which our conditioned senses can’t experience directly. But we can understand this at first theoretically, and gradually through better and better understanding of the nature, come to hold with greater confidence. The important point is that, all these are however “conditionedâ€, i.e. subject to the universal characteristic of impermanence, suffering and non-self.

Some might compare God with the concept of the unconditioned Nibbana (Nirvana). But according to the Buddha’s teachings, Nibbana is just a momentary object of the enlightened mind, i.e. it lasts only a billionth of a second. It is that which is needed to clearly “see through†all conditioned states, even the most highly sublime ones. One consequence of this is that one who HAS experienced Nibbana, he would not come away then teaching about ‘Truth’ as is taught in other religions and philosophies. This is why in my opinion Buddhism (as found in the Theravada Pali tradition), being so different from every other teaching, that I think one should not even attempt to find any similarities, less read into it one’s personal ideas.

Sorry for stating my views so strongly, I hope you understand the situation.

Sukinderpal

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pheena

Pheena

Posted
Posted

All,

Tittha Sutta

Sectarians

“Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that— when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people—even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?......................................

“Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’ When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. >>>>

impressive and very thought inducing post. :)

God whatever or whomever it is, is not limited to a single viewpoint. Buddha is not a Poet like Guru Nanak, Buddha did not dance like Krishna or Meera Bhai. He was not born in a family of Wariors. The teaching of Buddha and Guru Nanak are on 2 different levels and are from 2 different eras. Altho what seem like contradictory teaching, i only see them as 2 truth that can co-exist. Unless the destination which Buddha reaches is different from what Guru Nanak reached, that is something I seriously cannot fathom, that there are 2 different destinations. Yes, the means to reach there are obviously different, but the end must be the same. There may be and are countless door, but they all must lead to the same source.

So i have a question...does the Concept of Shoonia (voidness) expressed in the Sutras of Buddha. If so, then what does it say?

Is the concept of God replaced by the concept of Shoonia in Buddhism? Would this even be a worthwhile comparison as one states the absence of existence, yet the other declares existence...?

I am curious now whether the sutras actually answer the question of God directly?

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sikh_apprentice

sikh_apprentice

Posted
Posted

Dont buddhists believe that buddha was the incarnation of god, and since then buddha has been incarnated as the dalai lama, which has been passed onto many dalai lamas. on the topic of the current dalai lama he must be the most cheerful, and humerous of all the religious leaders. i saw michael palin interview him on"himalaya with michael palin." he also visited Sri Harmandir shaib ji, and stay overnight in the accomadation in the Gurdwara complex for 65p per night.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

Footer title

This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.

Footer title

This is an example of a list.

Footer title

This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.

Footer title

This content can be configured within your theme settings in your ACP. You can add any HTML including images, paragraphs and lists.

×
×
  • Create New...