Buddha kept silent about God

dattaswami1

Well-Known Member
Messages
88
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Buddha kept silent about God


Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.
 
Namaste Dattaswami,

thank you for the post.

i'm a bit loath to engage in conversation with you since these are not your words but cut and pastes from someone else.

nevertheless, i shall give it a go.

Buddha kept silent about God


Buddha kept silent about God.


whilst many theistic beings hold this view it is a decidely incorrect view. many beings claim that this is so since they have read that the Buddha Shakyamuni, when presented with the question, remained "silent". this refelcts a serious misunderstanding of the way in which Suttas/Sutras are emplyed within the rubric of Buddhism. there are other Suttas where the Buddha clearly discusses the various deity concepts prevalent at the time and dismisses them as incapable of leading a being to the Other Shore.

more to the point, however, is that the Buddhas rejection of a creator deity is not a religious objection. it is a philosophical objection to the idea of any aspect of reality being static and unchanging, which is the ultimate ground of being of reality.

Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God.


Buddha comes from the Sanskrit root "budh" which means "to know" or "to realize" and the suffix of "a" deonotes a being which does so, thus a Buddha is a being which realizes or knows.

Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God.


yet, when asked, he refuted such ideas. there are no supporting Suttas or Sutras that would lead one to the conclusion that Buddha was an incarnation of any deity. recall, one of the other titles of a Buddha is "Teacher of Gods and Men".

If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool.


the Suttas make it quite clear that deities exist and that these deities approached the Buddha to Turn the Wheel for them and to teach the Dharma amongst their retuine.

that said, one requires no deity beliefs to practice the Dharma... deities are, by and large, inconsequential in this endeavor.

the discussion of other religous views towards God and deity are more appropriate carried on in those forums.

metta,

~v
 
Namaste Bodhi,

thank you for the kind words :)

to be perfectly frank with you... i'm not even sure why it would be important for a non Buddhist what the Buddha taught about anything in particular.. especially in the manner in which it is oft done.

it strikes me as quite disengenious to read a Sutta, if they have even done so, out of a corpus of nearly 28,000 Suttas and Sutras and make any sort of claim about "what the Buddha taught" in light of the teachings of the other Suttas/Sutras.

i suppose its a positive reinforcement cycle... charitably speaking.

metta,

~v
 
Vaj,

Well said, It seems the original poster would do well to learn from all of Buddha's main ideas, instead of picking and choosing what he wants to say, only for the purpose of using Buddhism to spread non-Buddhism.
 
Namaste Bodhi,


it strikes me as quite disengenious to read a Sutta, if they have even done so, out of a corpus of nearly 28,000 Suttas and Sutras and make any sort of claim about "what the Buddha taught" in light of the teachings of the other Suttas/Sutras.

i suppose its a positive reinforcement cycle... charitably speaking.

metta,

~v


This is my problem. I consider myself a Buddhist, but I only have access to the Majjhima Nikaya. How can I truly participate in a religion where I don't have access to all of the teachings? Not to mention, a lot of the Majjhima Nikaya I don't understand. Like the Mulapariyaya Sutta. I don't try to pretend I have the same understanding as the monks and Brahmins the Buddha was speaking too.

I tell you another book I consider a Holy (not to die for or anything, just unfounded truth), NO DEATH, NO FEAR by Thay Thich Nhat Hanh. I am leaning towards the Theravada path but Thay is my teacher. I was lost as a person until I read No Death, No Fear. Good Stuff :D
 
Namaste Bodhi_mindisfree,

thank you for the post.

This is my problem. I consider myself a Buddhist, but I only have access to the Majjhima Nikaya.

why is that? i've posted many links to the Suttas.. more than 80% of them are translated into English and are available online.

perhaps you'll find this link to be of some interest:

Sutta Pitaka

Buddhist Sutras

How can I truly participate in a religion where I don't have access to all of the teachings? Not to mention, a lot of the Majjhima Nikaya I don't understand. Like the Mulapariyaya Sutta. I don't try to pretend I have the same understanding as the monks and Brahmins the Buddha was speaking too.

MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta

this is known as the "root sequence" sutta and it is herein where the Buddha makes clear that there is nothing which can be considered the "ground of being" out of which all things arise. it is a very important Sutta in the canon of teachings and, though we may not penetrate to the depth of it, it is quite useful for the layperson too.

metta,

~v
 
namaste dattaswami,

im sorry, but i think that you are confused about buddhism. it didnt stay completely silent about god. but what it did say was that god wasnt permanent and therefore wasnt a permanent form of happiness. we can all become a god due to the accumulation of much positive karma, but that isnt the point of buddhism. the point is to follow the path to the end of sufferring, which is the noble 8 fold path. the buddha did not acknowledge the exisitance of a permanent god that we should worship in order to become one with him, or any other claim of the like.

maybe you should take a look at the links that vaj left on here of the pali cannon and read the actual words of the buddha, then make claims on what he taught. i hope that this has helped you to better understand the teachings of buddha on the concept of god.

be well in peace
 
I was reading the Mahadukkhakkhandha Sutta in the Majhima Nikaya. The Buddha says thus:

...BHIKKHUS, I SEE NO ONE IN THE WORLD WITH ITS GODS, ITS MARAS, AND ITS BRAHMAS, IN THIS GENERATION WITH ITS RECLUSES AND BRAHMINS,...

In other words, he speaks of gods as though they exist. Therefore, what is the point of this thread???
 
I was reading the Mahadukkhakkhandha Sutta in the Majhima Nikaya. The Buddha says thus:

...BHIKKHUS, I SEE NO ONE IN THE WORLD WITH ITS GODS, ITS MARAS, AND ITS BRAHMAS, IN THIS GENERATION WITH ITS RECLUSES AND BRAHMINS,...

In other words, he speaks of gods as though they exist. Therefore, what is the point of this thread???
I wouldn't worry too much about it, Bodhi. The poster in question was also on the Christianity board employing similar tactics. Producing actual Christian scriptures which were contrary to his claims didn't deter him.
 
I find it rather humorous (I can't spell).:D

You could have fooled me. You have spelled every word in that post correctly.

seattlegal said:
Producing actual Christian scriptures which were contrary to his claims didn't deter him.

I find that many people don't let reality deter them from asserting their views.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Back
Top