the Buddha

Believe nothing, o monks,
merely because you have been told it ...
or because it is traditional,
or because you yourselves have imagined it.
Do not believe what your teacher tells you
merely out of respect for the teacher.

But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,
you find to be conducive to the good,
the benefit, the welfare of all beings ³
that doctrine believe and cling to,
and take it as your guide.

- Gautama Buddha







Religion without God in Indian philosophy by Shlomo Biderman

Speaking of the religious activity of the believer, Wittgenstein described him as "using a picture." If we adopt Wittgenstein's metaphor we shall probably have no difficulty in identifying, in most cases, the main subject of such pictures. By this I mean, of course, the concept of God. The existence of God in monotheistic western religions is regarded as inseparable from the very existence of those religions. It should, therefore, be of no surprise that common definitions of religion -- treading in the wake of the monotheistic trend, emphasize right from the beginning the belief in the existence of God as a necessary ingredient of religion.

There is no doubt that the monotheistic picture indeed represents a large number of religions. But one should not jump to the conclusion that the religious museum solely represents pictures of the monotheistic trend. On the contrary, one can find in the museum a great variety of religious pictures, in part of which God figures in the center of the picture, in others He figures only in the margins, and in some He does not figure at all.

The most prominent religious picture in which God does not figure at all is, of course, the Buddhist religion. This religion can be characterized not only as non-theistic but more so as atheistic; that is to say, not only does the Buddhist religion discard the notion of God as a religious term, but it vehemently rejects any use of this notion as meaningless. Buddhism is, therefore, a religion without God.

Monotheistic religions very often describe God as revealing himself in the world. God's revelation usually takes place in the succession of historical events that began at the moment of the creation of the world and continued throughout history. God's subsequent revelations in history have sometimes been direct, and sometimes by means of intermediaries, the prophets, sages and saints. In the context of God's revelation Scriptures play an especially important role. In the first place they give out invaluable information concerning God's revelation in history. Furthermore, they describe the exact nature of those revelations. The Scriptures are therefore conceived as directly springing from God who bestows upon them authority as well as infallibility.

It is thus plausible to assume that any atheistic religion which denies the existence of God would therefore try to the best of its ability to undermine the authority of Scriptures as well. And indeed Buddhist and Jainist philosophies in India have both attacked the intelligibility of the concept of God as well as the notion of s'abda - the World of Scriptures through which God is revealed. It is, therefore, strange to find out a religion which is totally in accord with the Buddhist religion in its refutation of God's existence but which,--at the same time, revers the Scriptures fullheartedly. This religion is represented by--the Mimamsa school of Hinduism. In what follows I shall dwell upon some interesting points of that religion.

First, a few words concerning the historical background of Mimamsa. The Mimamsa school is considered to be one of the most ancient of Hindu philosophical schools. The oldest text of it known to us today is the mimamsa sutra which, according to Indian tradition, was written by the somewhat mysterious Jaimini. It was in all probability composed in the third or second centuries B.C. However, there is room to suppose that the actual beginnings of the Mimamsa school can be dated even earlier; the mimamsa sutra is thus a systematic summary of some religious conceptions that existed in India up to the time of Ja'imini. Several commentaries were written on the mimamsa sutra, and the most important one known to us today is that of Sabara. According to most scholars this commentary was written in the first or second centuries A.D., that is, about five hundred years after Jaimini's lifetime.

As its name, 'Inquiry,' indicates, Mimamsa considers the interpretation of Scriptures to be its primary function. The Scriptures are the only source for knowing religious duties (dharma). They present religious duties within a set of laws, injunctions and prohibitions, to which the believer must strictly adhere to. Thus, the religious verses that can be found in the Scriptures have a single objective: to instruct man in the permitted paths of action and to block off those paths that are forbidden him. It follows that religious duty is not dependent either on some abstract articles of faith or on the existence of some mental state. In other words, religion obliges the believer only as a set of commands, that is, only insofar as religion impinges on his actions. Religion is not therefore intended to provide man with historical, cosmological, psychological or moral precepts; it certainly does not claim to preach a spiritual method of release by which man can attain the absolute Being. The sole legitimate aim of religion is to oblige man to perform certain activities and to refrain from others.

Dharma, then is expressed by the set of laws and injunctions which are presented to the believer in the Scriptures. Obviously, the infallibility of these Scriptures, is a necessary condition for accepting the religious imperatives as authoritative and binding. In other words, in order that the religious commands would be regarded as obligatory, the validity of Scriptures should be acknowledged beyond any reasonable doubt. In fact, the validity of Scriptures is accepted by the Mimamsa as axiomatic. Scriptures are authoritative, that is, everlasting, unchangeable and infallible; they do not stem from any external source, either divine or human.

Buddha never preached the existence of personal gods and when he was asked about the impersonal Brahman he apparently refused to speak. However he is the same as all the perennial philosophers because he preached that everything is one and that by following the eight fold path you can realize this oneness within yourself which is true happiness. Becoming one with nirvana is the same as becoming one with God.

I know that Pâtañjala Yoga is said to bring one to NirvâNa, however what I enjoyed reading about, in this piece (OT), is the philosophy of "no mind". Just that intuitive bonding or awareness to the unknowable, amorphous source.


edit typo

"Becoming one with nirvana is the same as becoming one with God."

I would say they are very different things.

The reason for the mingling of these concepts is the hindu influence over buddhism historically.

I see no difference at all. But that is only my opinion

To elaborate what would be the difference in essence? Being one with nirvana which is supreme enlightenment or being one with god which can be called infinite consciousness or Tao are very different to you. How?

perhaps some day experience will show you otherwise.

I am open to that possibility.

I think being one in with god and having Nirvana are slightly different because when your one with God you would have a relationship with an actual person...but other then that it would be basically the same.

Maybe input from a practicing Buddhist might be welcome at this point. To tell you the truth, Buddhism as a whole doesn't really have a concept of God- because it was never really meant to. Think of Buddhism more as a way of life than a faith. Sure, there's faith involved, but it is not placed in things as abstract in nature as God. Tibetan Buddhism is for the most part strictly atheistic, while Japanese Buddhism is closer to Hinduism in its concepts of multiple gods, and there's a variety of beliefs in between. Comparing Buddhism to other world religions is really something which cannot be done...

Nirvana is pretty abstract to me And you think it can;t be compared to other religions?? Hinduism has millions of God but all these Gods are a reflection of Brahman the impersonal oneness of the entire cosmos. There is basicly no difference between Brahman and nirvana. Both mean the same thing. Being one with nirvana means being one with the cosmos and being one with nirvana is the exact same thing.

Both at their core are perennial philosophies. Mayahana doesn;t believe in God yet it states that there is a universal mind which we are all part and that the purpose of life is to realize this universal mind within ourselves. This is exactly the same as christianity's finding "The kingdom of God within". The only difference is in semantics.

When Enlightenment is perfected, a Bodhisattva(Guru, awakened one) is free from the bondage of things, but does not seek to be delivered from things. Samsara(the world of becoming) is not hated by him, nor is Nirvana loved. When perfect Enlightenment shines, it is niether bondage nor deliverance.

---Prunabuddha-sutra (Buddhist)

There is niether creation nor destruction, Niether destiny nor free will; niether path nor achievement; This is the final truth.

---Ramana Maharshi (Hindu)

Both these people in my opinion reached god or nirvana or whatever you wanna call it. Is there any difference?? They are both describing the same thing but with different words.

Yes I agree...but the difference being that Buhdism doesnt have a deity. So nirvana would be "becoming one with yourself" and "being one with God" would mean that you are one with yourself and with God.

A soul pure in God is God.

--The philokalia (Christian mysticism)

Does this not imply what you are saying with the concept of God?

I'm not entirely sure I understand that quote...but even though you are one with God you are not God...you don't get cool powers or get to rule heaven.

That is god in the personal aspect. Being one with God is being god. Not only do you rule over heaven but you are heaven and everything else. You are one with everything there is in the cosmos. Hence "A soul pure in god is God."

Here are some other quotes from christian mystics to help elucidate

The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.--Meister Eckhart (christian mystic)

The soul is in itself a most Lovely and perfect image of God. ---St John of the cross (christian mystic)

In those respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself. --St Bernard (christian mystic)

To gauge the soul we must gauge it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. ----Meister Eckhart

Anyway I agree with these perennial philosophers. I may be wrong but intuition tells me they are right. The information they have on offer here is much more freeing and enlightening than the organized religions interpretation.

Your quoting philosophers and philosophers are just people with ideas and opinions.

What I'm trying to say that even if you are "one with god" in the way you are describing, God is till a separate entity with his own traits. I don't think being "one with God" grants you the power to flood the planet, smite people, or create a universe.

I believe God to be a sentient entity...like a person, he has his own traits, personality, and behavior.

P.S. I'm not religious but this what I would believe if I did believe...I think. My sig helps explain.

the reason you see similarity is that chrisianity "borrowed" concepts from its elder philosophies. Unfortunately, these concepts were not fully understood by those doing the borrowing.

Imagine coming from a society that grasped linear algebra at its limit. You go on a journey and find an ancient civilization with a book called calculus, within which you find wonderful new tools that would be so valuable to you (and you think to your society). You copy the examples from the book, noting what measures you need to substitute for you calculations. You go home and are "the enlightened genious" for bringing this breakthrough understanding to the people. Yet, you have no understanding of the concepts of calculus at all.

Ya my point is that God and soul are not separate. That is an illusion.

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)

You are the Self, the infinite Being, the pure, unchanging Consciousness, which pervades everything. Your nature is bliss and your glory is without stain. Because you identify yourself with the ego, you are tied to birth and death. Your bondage has no other cause.

I only quote these people because in my opinion I believe that they have experienced god first hand via a mystical experience. This I believe qualifies them to speak on the subject because they know what they are talking about. All I can do is read what they leave behind and have faith in what they say.

I believe that too...and the rest I think.

What I'm trying to say is that their is a slight(almost meaningless) difference between "being one with God" and nirvana. Nirvana would be being one with yourself and the universe....where as "being one with God" means the exact same thing except your sharing it with God.

For the sake of this thread(and my sanity) I'm using biblical canon and christian beliefs v.s what I know about Buhdism(and its canon). If your trying to say that upon reaching nirvana and "oneness with God" you actually become a god who can create his own universe and the like, please say so.

No what I mean is you dont become a god but become the god. It is nothing new because everything that begins will end. You become god which is infinite and eternal. No need to create one's own universe because God is already everything so what can it possibly create that isn't already in existence? Realization of god within is actaully realizing something you always have been. It is nothing new. I havn't realized it but I have faith in it. But Buddha puts it the same in his own beautiful context when he states:

I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment.

So it is the same really. Well it is to me anyway. Being one with nirvana is the exact same as being one with god, infinite consciousness, allah, tao etc

Different names to describe the exact same thing. Though many would disagree about this.

cade,

to throw another aspect into it,

when one reaches "enlightenment", the "self" ceases to exist (or more precisely the illusion of there being a self is shattered). This is most easily understood through understanding that the conscious self is defined by external parameters, while once enlighened there is nothing external.

To me they are also the same...except for some minor details. It's being one with the universe v.s. being one with God...they are exact in almost everyway(liek you said) but the universe isn't a sentient being.

Well put indeed hyperactive!@! I have a small parable which will help elucidate the point:

A monk asked Wei-kuan: "Where is Tao(God)?"

Kuan: "Right before us."

Monk: "Why don't I see it?"

Kuan: "Because of your egoism you cannot see it."

Monk: "If I cannot see it because of my egoism, does your Reverence see it?"

Kuan: "As long as there is 'I' and 'thou', this complicates the situation and there is no seeing Tao."

Monk: "When there is niether 'I' nor 'thou' is it seen?"

Kuan: "When there is niether 'I' nor 'thou', who is here to see it?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU CAN'T GET MUCH PARADOXICAL THAN THAT!@!

See in my opinon I disagree. I think that the whole universe is alive consciousness whether animate or inanimate. All energy is consciousness in my eyes.

It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe that lures him to evil. ----Buddha

That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For fro, within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornifications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deciet, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come fro within, and defile the mind.--Jesus

Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.--Jesus

If you want to get rid of your enemy, the true way is to realize that your enemy is delusion.--Kegon Sutra

These few examples here are why I see Buddhism and christianity as preaching the same perennial philosophy.

And by exstension almost every other religion.

I agree, Buddhism is not so much a faith as a lifestyle, a way of thinking. However, I'd like to point out the Japanese had their multiple gods before Buddhism. They manage to co-exist because Buddhism does not put forward a god of their own, ergo there is no competition for believers.

There still requires faith in the four nobles truths. And one has faith in them to keep on practicing buddhism and refining oneself for enlightenment.

True, it requires faith, but not in a deity. That's why I don't think of Buddhism as a religion.

Still a religion. And Buddha has become a diety in it's own right even though Buddha preached against such things. But the same went with Jesus. But I do agree that because it's more about experimenting with the truths buddha taught and seeing for oneself there is less of that tainted connotation other organized religions have. But Mahayana buddhism though it doesn't have a God has what is called a universal mind which is all minds. This universal mind can be likened to "infinite" or "God" because according to the mahayanist buddhist without grace from this universal mind there is no enlightenment. Whereas with the Hinayanists everything is stressed on personal effort.

I think that's pretty ludicrous. They think of Buddha as a deity, but he preached against it, and if you follow a deity you gotta listen to that deity, don't ya?

I thought the Buddha emphasized self-deification, which would impart an understanding, once attained, of transcending all need of icons, sectarian loyalties, etc... And yet, like christianity, there's a number of different philosophies under the canopy of "Buddhism". Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, etc... Not to mention related deific statues. (The laughing Buddha, Vajrapani, Jambhala, etc...) So, if Gautama spoke against it, what's that deific imagery exists to represent Buddhism, mean to the spirit of his teachings?!

it means that it is not the "enlightened" but the adherent followers that mold the doctorine.

Ewww, well said! And for more than just Buddhism, I'd say.

I read somewhere that you can be a Buhdist and still believe in a deity or anything else you want. Buhdism isn't one of those religions that teaches you everything. You can believe in The Big Bang theory, Evolution, and pink unicorns and still be a Buhdist.

but as a buddhist you can not accept anything that violates your own reasoning/sense or understanding...

The basics of buddhism is this: While in a state of self-will and under the illusion of being separate from everything else in the universe one will always to some degree or another experience suffering. Enlightenment is attaining the state of mind which is nirvana which is the destruction of all illusion and seeing everything as yourself. This is supreme happiness.

"This is supreme happiness."

Unfortunately it isn't, or at at best the happiness is fleeting.

This is where we agree to disagree. I have faith that these perennial philosophers found eternal happiness and teach the means of getting there.

I agree with this emphatically, a system has no value if it creates a dependency and too often that is what happens with even the best of the ideas....

Its apply the idea if it can work for you, once applyed it becomes knowledge( wisdom) then let go.......move on....

BNW I don't think its possible to have "eternal happiness" this would be much like chasing rainbows.. life is a ebb and flow , highs and lows, for a woman this is probably easier to digest we jsut naturally understand that there are moments that you are in tune all is at peace and moments where this isn't so and its all okay, becasue this too shall pass, life has a inherent rythum..there is a time for all things........Possibily the 'happiness is in knowing all things pass, nothing stays the same and that all things at their highest expression are transcended to joy anyways....You don't not feel things or experince things becasue you are enlightened......

Well what can I say? I can't prove it to you I can only have faith. Buddha, Ramana Maharshi etc I believe that they found eternal happiness. Happiness is knowingall things must past but eternity itself remaians forever unchanged....

BNW,. We are always in a process of evolving every moment, you can't hold your breathe and you can't hold onto anything, is the point of buddhism, nor would you want to, you would seek to be in tune which is ebb and flow, let go, become again....

One must use great great care in not making these quests dogmas, what is, is what is you simply tune into it and go with it and certainly not seek to be attached to 'ideas'.....they are tools to get from one point to the next then let go of....the gift for you is to note the attachment it is the letting go that the wisdom is derived.....


buddhism is about letting go of attachments....

brave,

let me ask you to explain the happiness in this scenario of enlightenment:

one reaches the point of the interconnect, the timelessness of being everything (sorry, the limits of human language can't really explain it).
one must still "exist" within "this world" post "enlightenment".
one can easily be at peace, and content, in being aware of oneself and reality,
but what of the process of existing in the non-enlightened world?
Where is there happiness is being the oil floating in the waterworld?

Well first off, Buddhism was founded by fallable human beings, of course there are going to be disagreements so like any other philosophy Buddhism branched into different sects. The logical mind has a tendency to sort, separate and categorize. But if you really feel the need to go to a temple or a meditation center, any one will do. Ideally, there are as many schools of Buddhism as there are practitioners.

Statue makers have to feed their families as well. *shrug* Also the statues serve as a valuable lesson, when you seek Buddha externally all you will find is a form.

Ah, that gives me a very good picture of all this. Thank you for your insight, I appreciate that.

anytime GW.

BECAUSE BY DOING THIS YOU ACHIEVE ENLIGHTENMENT WHICH IS "SUPREME" OR "TRUE" HAPPINESS" THIS IS WHY BUDDHA IS SO FAMOUS BECAUSE HE FOUND THE MEANS TO EVERLASTING PEACE. This is one of the most fundamental things about buddhism.

Yes but you no longer exist as a mere mortal who thinks he is the body and a limited being one realizes one's true being which is infinite and not just interconnected with everything else but actually is everything else. I know I am bad for it but it is best that I write up some quotes from people who actually reached that stage and either wrote it down themselves or someone recorded what they were saying(and no i am not asking to you believe them im only asking you to read cause it will show you where I stand and which will add substance to our friendly debate).

You are the Self, the infinite Being, the pure, unchanging Consciousness, which pervades everything. Your nature is bliss and your glory is without stain. Because you identify yourself with the ego, you are tied to birth and death. Your bondage has no other cause.

---Shankara

Ignorance of the self is the source of all troubles and the knowledge of it is deathless bliss and peace. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. P66. (Yogavasishtha V.5.23)

And when Brahman (nirvana, God) is attained, to the man of realisation all beings become the very self, then what delusion, what sorrow can there be for the seer of oneness?” (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p109 (Isa Upanishad,7)

Is it the body in front of me which desires to obtain my grace? Or is it the awareness within it? If it is the awareness, is it not now looking upon itself as the body and making this request? If so let the awareness first of all know it's real nature. It will then automatically know God and my grace. The truth of this can be realized even now and here. ---Ramana Maharshi after being asked by a seeker if he would bestow his gracious wisdom.


Pleasure pr pain are only aspects of the mind. Our essential nature is happiness. We forget the Self and image the body or the mind to be the Self. It is the wrong identity that gives rise to misery.---Ramana Maharshi (Allah bless his soul).

We already are eternal happiness we just have to realize it. This is the message of the perennial philosophers . Anyway I hope these writings convey some idea of where I am coming from. They know that the happiness most of us experience is "fleeting at best" hence part of the reason that buddha has as the first noble truth that life creates a capacity for suffering. We must die unto our real self meaning we must stop identifying with the ego and identify with our true Self (capital s) which is in all of us: The "I" casts off the illusion of "I" and yet remains as "I". Such is the paradox of self-realization.

It's simple really, very clear
Like music drifting in the air
Invisible, but everywhere
Just because I cannot see it
Doesn't mean I can't believe it!@!

---Jack the Pumpkin king (from the movie: The nightmare before christmas)
No chosen ones, no special people ordained by god it is all of us. I am all by faith and the only real scientific point I have going for what I believe is the fact that science to this very day are completely and utterly baffled as to how the brain creates consciousness. And because of this they cannot prove that the brain does create consciousness/awareness. I believe what Buddha, Lao Tzu and Ramana Maharshi says and that is that consciousness/awareness creates the body and all the universe. This consciousness is the true nature of everything in the universe and not only does it pervade everything in the universe but is everything in the universe. We could say awareness at it's highest purest level is all but there is no all apart from the awareness. I believe this not because they have said it but because it vibrates well with my intuition. It isn't blind belief because im not fanatical about it.

I'll finish this post with one last remark which may sound a little off topic:

The ultimate truth is so simple; it is nothing more than being in one's natural, original state. It is a great wonder that to teach such a simple truth a number of religions should ne necessary, and so many disputes should go on between them as to which is the God-ordained teaching. What a pity! What a pity! Just be the Self (capital s), that is all. Because people want something elaborate and mysterious, so many religions have come into existence. Only those who are mature can understand the matter in its naked simplicity.

---Ramana Maharshi

GW, per some of our other discussions, the recognition of powerful, supernatural "dragons" is seen in Buddhism just as in virtually every other religion, including those derived by the Hebrew Bible, (though many Christians as we have seen, have attempted to cover up these facts). The only real difference is that in the Bible, these same dragons "work" for a creator God. They are a universal thread in virtually every human belief system, but why? Simply because somebody found a dinosaur bone, or were afraid of snakes or crocodiles? And if these were only monsters to be feared, why are they also benificent creatures that help mankind as we see in oriental cultures?