This is probly a stupid question but do buddist believe in God?

Depends on how much their sect has been influenced (or corrupted if you like that word better, but let's be nice http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)) by Hinduism, and of course personal belief.

Personally, I think Buddhism goes very well combined with Islam. It just seems to fit that way. Granted, I'm not an expert in either, but learning always affords itself time.

Buddhism goes very well combined with islam? please.

WTF Buddishm Islam are m,utually exclusive

Umm, Buddhism grew out of the old vedic beliefs, as did Hinduism. I'd say it's how much it's been influenced by Dao, Tao, Confucionism, Shinto and all the other FAR Eastern religions. But as a general rule, no, they don't believe in "God" as a diety, they believe in a general energy that is higher than the lowly Human. Unless you place the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas in the god catagory, but at best I think they could be considered demi-gods. Not even that really, just enlightened humans.



Please, quite believing Western Philosiphy.

quote:Originally posted by inquingconsciouss:

WTF

It's MY opinion, shut the hell up.

Yeah it depends. If you study buddhism as your one "true" religion, you will most likely believe in, Buddha's teachings, and not actually pray to buddha himself. You will probably also believe in reincarnation, Karma, and having buddha statues in your home. However, if you study it as a philosophy like I do, You can be a christian like myself and still believe in God and Jesus, life after death, Loving your neighbor as yourself (Karma)and you can meditate everyday and work for overall well being like buddhists do. hope this helped,

Samurai warrior

Heathen!

Depends which brand of buddhism you subscribe to.

Generally speaking, most buddhists texts agree that supernatural beings (which gets translated to gods, angels, devils,etc.) exist. They also agree that there is no God with a capital G, since there are many gods and many buddhas.

However, the existence of a central deity, really depends on if you ask a Theravada buddhist or a Mahayana buddhist or any one of the buddhist subcultures.

In addition, the gods and demi-gods have lifespans ans die. Something like 80,000 years I thinks.

"JohnTitorsAssistant" came closest to the truth, I think. You can't assume that "Buddhism" is the same everywhere, regardless of place or context. And more generally, it would depend if you were speaking of Theravadan Buddhism or Mahayana Buddhism.

Theravadan Buddhism is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha, and is generally atheistic. If you read the teachings of the Buddha, he did speak of gods at times but mostly this was just to explain his teachings to people. (Remember: he had to place his teachings within the context of 6th century [mostly Hindu] India.)He would essentially say, 'Sure, sure, there are gods, but it doesn't matter. They can't help you find enlighenment. They're stuck in samsara, too!' ("Samsara" is the Sanskrit term for the endless cycle of birth and death, which Buddhists attempt to escape.) So "God" really had no place in the Buddha's original teachings. Theravada Buddhism is still practiced in Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand.

To grossly condense Buddhist history, at the Second Council after the Buddha's death, there were some slight disagreements over the monastic code. Some monks wanted certain chnages made (like being allowed to flavor their food with salt, or being allowed to carry money), while some traditionalists wanted to stick to the original code. The monks that wanted changes made eventually formed the Mahasanghika, which eventually led to various Mahayana forms of Buddhism.

Today, there is no one form of Mahayana Buddhism - types that you have probably heard of include Zen and Pure Land. Many of these forms of Buddhism combine the Buddha's original teachings with various indigenous practices of that particular country. Some of them include a God or gods (ex: the Pure Land sect). China, Japan, Korea, and several other nations practice different forms of Mahayana Buddhism.

There's no god in buddhism, in the meaning like christian god or allah.

In Tibetian Book of the Dead it is written that a soul of a dead man meets round 100 pf different gods before next birth, however they are only reflections of the dead man's conscience.

That is why buddhism doesn't really approve or disapprove the existance of gods - the path to salvation lies inside of oneself.

^^Which brings up the whole argument of self/no-self.

Theravada Buddhism, the one I used to follow, is atheist but does believe in metaphysical apparitions. There is no God, but there is a heaven and hell which can only be separated by the mind. The key to ending the process of reincarnation is to come to the understanding that heaven and hell, good and evil, are the same. Alpha and Omega are one, no beginning, no end, just now. Once you understand that, then your mind begins to grow until you are at peace with yourself, or everything. Once peace and unity exists between you and all else, you are free from life and death and are all at once.

Crazy shite, yeah, but even as an atheist, I hope if I'm wrong that my former Buddhist beliefs are correct.

quote:Originally posted by KidKelko:

Heathen!

LoL.

There are no gods only bears.

The bears can exist on earth but only some people can see them. There are bear commanders, and bear corporals they are the leader the "soldiers" so to speak would just be normal bears. Bears are EVERYWHERE. People who can see them have powerful supernatural abilites and are what could be called "chosen ones" I am one of these people

THE BEARS ARE EVERYWHAAAAAA

Hmmm... there are 6 spheres of existance: the sphere of demons (the lowest), hungry spirits (at least they are so called in Russian), animals, humans, half gods and gods. The law of karma rules all these spheres. Thence there are gods. But they aren't free from sansara as well.

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 06-01-2004).]

what's a god?

quote:Originally posted by evolove:

what's a god?

God

1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

6. A very handsome man.

7. A powerful ruler or despot.

quote:Originally posted by KidKelko:

Umm, Buddhism grew out of the old vedic beliefs, as did Hinduism.

I thought Buddhism consisted of the teachings of the Buddha, after his enlightenment.

It is obviously very different from Hinduism.

It claims to free the human being from reincarnation and suffering. If it has been "contaminated" with other beliefs, it is not pure buddhism anymore.

I don't know much about it, but I always thought Buddism is an extention of Hinduism, which believes in a lot of Gods. Those Gods are all just part of one God, which many believe is the same God that the Abraham religions worship (I just call them that.. what I mean are jews, Christians and muslims).

No, he's right. Siddhattha Gautama (i.e. the Buddha) was a "Hindu" (like Jesus was a Jew). His teachings revised and transformed Indian beliefs, but they did grow out of that context. (Note: I put "Hindu" in quotation marks because it's actually a Western concept. There really is no religion called "Hinduism" - just a variety of Indian belief systems that the West named and defined as one singular entity.)

The Hindu sages also sought to end reincarnation; the Buddha simply offered another method. Certain philosophical/religious sects in India at the time advocated a hedonistic, pleasure-seeking lifestyle, while others advocated an ascetic, self-denying lifestyle. The Buddha taught "the Middle Way" between the two extremes.

Also, there's not really any such thing as "pure Buddhism" (or any "pure" religion, for that matter). All belief systems are changed and transformed by the surrounding cultural and political landscape, and vice versa. Original Indian Buddhism was largely wiped out - only small pockets of it still exist in India today. Again, though, there are some countries that practice Theravadan Buddhism, which attempts to follow the original teachings of the Buddha (Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, etc.). It's important to remember, though, that the Buddha never wrote anything down. So all we have are interpretations of his teachings from his followers many years later, and then modern readers must again interpret those texts. Naturally, as with all texts, many interpretations are possible.

quote:Originally posted by ZeroMalarki:

I don't know much about it, but I always thought Buddism is an extention of Hinduism, which believes in a lot of Gods. Those Gods are all just part of one God, which many believe is the same God that the Abraham religions worship (I just call them that.. what I mean are jews, Christians and muslims).

You're right, the more philosophical branches of Hinduism claim that the many gods are all manifestations of one God, or spiritual force, called Brahman.

The Buddha, however, denied the existence of a "God" or a "soul." He felt these were just ideas and one should not cling to them.

"God" or "soul" implies permanent entities, while he claimed there was only *impermanence*. Buddhism is founded upon this idea of impermanence.

Just an addition to the above posters.

Jataka tales, part of the Buddhist texts often refer to gods in the Hindu pantheon, Vishnu and the like.

Also, there are branches of Buddhism that do believe in an eternal entity, e.g. the Amitaba Buddha in Pure Land. Some branches also believe the in magical/salvation bringing properties of the holy texts.

God is nothing but that aspect that sits back and laughs at you for being mortal.

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

The Buddha, however, denied the existence of a "God" or a "soul." He felt these were just ideas and one should not cling to them.

"God" or "soul" implies permanent entities, while he claimed there was only *impermanence*. Buddhism is founded upon this idea of impermanence.

hmm... did he deny the idea of "soul"? Maybe if we divide a human into a body, a soul and spirit, then he did. The first two parts are temporary, but the spirit is not.

He's right. According to Theravada (and maybe others) buddhists, any living being consists of two parts: the mind(nama) and rupa(the body). Both are impermanent and separate from the other. The mind/soul is considered the consciousness that goes from reincarnation to reincarnation, which is the cycle of suffering. Acheiving nirvana is also known as cessation, which as been described as when the mind stops clinging to the concept of emergence of existence. If you're seriously interested, look into the study of Abhidhamma (http://www.buddhistinformation.com/mind.htm).

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

hmm... did he deny the idea of "soul"? Maybe if we divide a human into a body, a soul and spirit, then he did. The first two parts are temporary, but the spirit is not.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. I've never heard of anyone using the tripartite division body/soul/spirit to describe a human, as "spirit" and "soul" are usually considered to be the same thing.

While the Buddha did not deny the existence of a "mind," he did deny the existence of any eternal soul/spirit/whatever you may want to call it. Further, while we consider this a metaphysical problem in the West (i.e. determining the structure of reality), it really wasn't so for the Buddha. He wasn't terribly concerned with metaphysics. He denied the existence any eternal entity, not because he was concerned with being factually "correct," but because he thought believing in such things got in the way of achieving liberation. Various suttas in the Pali Nikayas support this.

What I did is called by some occultists the law of trinity: the body is matter, the soul makes it alive and provides us with emotions, the spirit is eternal and is the source of our will.

It's like: a computer (body), voltage (soul), user (spirit).

How about reaching Nirvana? Something reaches it... it is supposed to be eternal...

Spirit is bound with emotions and desires, getting rid of them is setting the spirit free from births and deaths...

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

What I did is called by some occultists the law of trinity: the body is matter, the soul makes it alive and provides us with emotions, the spirit is eternal and is the source of our will.

It's like: a computer (body), voltage (soul), user (spirit).

How about reaching Nirvana? Something reaches it... it is supposed to be eternal...

Spirit is bound with emotions and desires, getting rid of them is setting the spirit free from births and deaths...

Oh, OK. I teach world religions at a university, but we don't go into occult belief systems; it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.

According to Buddhist philosophy, nirvana (or "nibbana", as the Buddha would have called it in Pali) cannot be conceptualized. You can't define it as eternal or as temporal, as physical or spiritual, or in any of the terms we normally use to explain things. It is outside all of that; it simply can't be defined or conceptualized. There is a Buddhist tale about a fish and a turtle to explain this. The turtle says to the fish, "I just went for a walk." And the fish asks, "A walk? You mean a swim?" [I'm paraphrasing here, by the way; I'm just going on memory.] And the turtle says, "No, no. On the land. It's dry, not wet like water, and you can't swim on it." The fish thinks, "Impossible! Nothing like that could possibly exist." The Buddhists say that's the predicament we are in when we try to understand nirvana: we are the fish trying to understand a strange "dry land" that we can't even picture in our heads, let alone define or talk about. Any words you use to explain it will therefore miss the point. (Words are part of this world, while nirvana is not part of this world.)

Since it's difficult to describe a teaching without using words, though, it's usually described as the extinguishing of desire, or "tanha." It's #3 of the Four Noble Truths: 1) Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness or impermanence, sometimes erroneously translated as "suffering"), 2) Samudaya (the origin of dukkha, which is desire), 3) Nibbana (or Nirvana, as it's more commonly known in its Sanskrit form), and 4) Magga (or "the way" to reach nibbana, also known as the Noble Eightfold Path).



[This message has been edited by Lolita (edited 06-07-2004).]

I started studying buddhism 2 years ago, I actually entered it.

I was referring to occultism because it can link all religions together as many roads leading to the same destination.

Yes, the tale gives a nice example: a definition is always based on experiance, a fish will never know how to walk, it cannot understand it because it never walked and never will.

But in Buddhism spirit is trapped in a circle of deaths and ribirths due to desires and lusts. The existance is an endless suffering, that goes on and on, to become free of it means to get rid of emotions, feelings, desires and thus leave the circle.

Eternal means something only when we talk about time, when we talk something beyond time, we can't say eternal. Maybe that is what is meant. Spirit is beyond time's reach.

Eternal is just something that is not affected by time.

We can't get something beyond time like a fish cannot get what is walk, thence I believe we say eternal... maybe this is what Buddha meant when he said that nothing is eternal: what exists in time cannot remain unchanged by time...

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 06-07-2004).]

All this talk about the "right view" to hold - physical or spiritual, body or soul, eternal or temporal - reminds me of the Culamalunkya Sutta, or "The Shorter Discourse to Malunkyaputta." (This is Sutta #63 of the Majjhima Nikaya, if you've got a collection of Buddhist texts.)

Anyway, Malunkyaputta, a disciple of the Buddha's, realizes that the Buddha has not declared a number of things. He has not declared if the world is eternal or the world is not eternal, if the world is finite or the world is infinite, if the soul is the same as the body or if the soul is different from the body, and if we exist after death, if we do not exist after death, or if we both exist *and* not exist after death. Malunkyaputta decides he's going to give the Buddha an ultimatum: either he gives answers to these metaphysical questions, or he won't be his disciple anymore.

The Buddha basically says, "Did I ever promise you answers to these things?" (To which Malunkyaputta must reluctantly admit, "No, you didn't.") But then the Buddha also goes on to say that speculating about such things, or holding "speculative views" is also not useful and has nothing to do with the religious life. He concludes by saying:

"Therefore, Malunkyaputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared. And what have I left undeclared? 'The world is eternal' - I have left undeclared. 'The world is not eternal' - I have left undeclared. 'The world is finite' - I have left undeclared. 'The world is infinite' - I have left undeclared. 'The soul is the same as the body' - I have left undeclared. 'The soul is one thing and the body another' - I have left undeclared." [Etc, etc, etc. To save my hand and your eyes here, he goes on to say how he hasn't declared anything about an afterlife either.]

"Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have left it undeclared.

And what have I declared? 'This is suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the origin of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering' - I have declared.

Why have I declared that? Because it is benficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlighenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have declared it."

This was essentially the Buddha's response to all philosophical conundrums. They were simply unrelated to achieving enlighenment. He often referred to his teachings as "medicine", rather than as philosophy, and his approach is primarily utilitarian. (i.e. there's something wrong with you, this is what it is, there's a way to fix it, and this is the way.) All else is irrelevant and unimportant.

[This message has been edited by Lolita (edited 06-07-2004).]