Talk:Creator in Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hinduism and Buddhism

The teaching of Buddhist traditions about this subject does not form an orthodoxy.

The teaching of my Soto Zen tradition teaches that thinking God or not-God is probably a waste of time, and that's also what Guatanama Buddha taught. "Your idols of wood will burn in fire, clay will break, and metal will corrode."

I think that Buddhist theology is a Western pursuit that springs out of Western theistic ideas of divinity and the devine. Buddha doesn't have to be a God to be divine or powerful. I'm unsure if Asian Buddhist practitioners think of Buddha as a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent power like the Abrahamic God, but I don't think they spend a lot of time on it.

It's an interesting article, but one that shows what has to be called Western POV. That's not a complaint: perspective is inevitable. --Defenestrate 22:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, Defenestrate, for your thought-provoking comments. I enjoyed reading them. You may well have a point. Ultimately, what matters most is the practice of Dharma, rather than any labels or fixed concepts which we may attach to its various facets or even its totality. Openness and flexibility of mind are the key, I think. To that extent - I agree with much of the spirit of what you say. But perhaps as a Westerner, I'm doomed to a somewhat Western perspective (at least, in this present English incarnation!). Best wishes to you. - Tony. TonyMPNS 23:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of original sentence

My apologies to whomever changed my original sentence of the "God in Early Buddhism" section of the entry for returning the original formulation of that sentence. I'm sorry that I have had to do this, but unfortunately the change made did not accurately reflect what the Buddha actually states in the quoted sutta: he does not deny God there (and certainly not "god" - as he knows that Brahma and the other devas do exist - and actually details in this sutta the way to union with Brahma), but simply dismisses as foolish talk the claims of those who have not seen Brahma face to face and who do not live rightly and who yet presume to know the way to union with Brahma. Also, the new version of that sentence left the subsequent clause in an ungrammatical state - so a reversion to the original sentence was felt to be necessary. Regards - Tony TonyMPNS 14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

More Brahma/Brahman

As a student of the Vedas for some 10 years I would like to add my humble two-pence worth. From my understanding this is the view given in the Vedic texts regarding Brahma & Brahman.

Brahma = The deva (demigod) in charge of creation and the mode of passion 'rajas'. He is described as a temporary living entity, and is said to be the oldest living being in existence. His 'death' happens at the time of universal devastation, before material existence goes into an unmanifest state, and is then again reborn.

Brahman = The Impersonal aspect of the Supreme Person. That which is beyond material designation. Described also as 'God's brilliant effulgence'.

The traditional Vedic theory of liberation, or 'Moksha' is said to be when entrance is gained 'into' the Brahman. Essentially Moksha could be described as another word for 'Nirvana'.

As spirit souls (jivas) we are also essentially of the same quality as Brahman, although qualitively we are said to be different. See Sri Caitanya's philosophy of 'acinta-bheda-bheda tattva' (simultaneous oneness and difference).

This is not a 'Buddhist' view but I thought it might clarify the Brahma / Brahman issue somewhat?

Best Wishes

Om Tat Sat .... L 16/12/2005

• Thank you, my Friend, for the above interesting comments (from the Hare Krishna perspective, I believe?). It is always nice to get a helpful response to what one has written. I appreciate your time and effort in writing what you have posted above. I agree with you about "moksha" and "Nirvana": in the Nirvana Sutra, "moksha" is co-terminous with Nirvana. They are basically the same experience of Liberation. Lots of peace ("shanti") to you. Warm wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gods in Pali Canon

quote from article: seemingly non-deistic and non-theistic teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon

Actually this is not correct, the Pali Canon makes mention of many many gods, and so is not non-teistic nor non-deistic. It recognizes that gods exist, but does not exalt them as ideals which will forever save your soul, or give you an everlasting life. Gods die also, so a rebirth as a god is, although pleasurable, not an answer to life's dukkha. Life as a god does not have only advantages.

I only read the introduction to the article, but I don't like the tone of it, it seems very influenced by the desire sometimes seen in westerners not to want to have to believe in gods (often bceause of their experience with Christianity). Which is followed by a kind of pseudo-scientific approach, of trying to find reasons to confirm your belief in the non-existance of gods. But really the Pali Canon doesn't support those beliefs, in a large number of suttas devas (gods) are mentioned, sometimes even whole discussions take place. And most teachers or masters of the various Buddhist traditions recognize the existence of devas (gods), although they sometimes (depending on the person) may not talk about them a lot. greetings Sacca 09:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca. Don't be shocked: but I actually agree with you! I think you are totally and completely right. It is quite clear that "devas" ("gods") are presented as real beings (as real as you and I) in the Pali suttas. So I have changed that contentious sentence at the opening of the article to indicate that it is an omnipotent Creator God that is not affirmed by the Buddha in those Pali texts. All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

This article has been said to contian weasel words. I would like to hear what these weasel words are, so that the article's quality may be improved. Wandering Star 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reality of the Awakened Mind

hello, there is a statement in the introduction that in Mahayana teachings about "an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha)." are like a Creator God, and in the article these teachings are contrasted to the absence of a creator God in the pali canon and the agamas. I think this is not correct, I have never heard this before, and think it goes against the basic (Mahayana) Buddhist teachings. I would like to delete the passage, I think all groups of Buddhism agree on the absence of a creator god and the presence of many types of gods. There are many ways to describe various aspects of the enlightened mind or ultimate reality and the above is one of those, it does't refer to gods. Greetings, Sacca 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I agree. I think the new version is clearer and more accurate. --Aetheling 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More Brahma/Brahman

Upanishads most certainly don't teach about God Brahma. They teach about brahman, the Absolute. To avoid sectarian information and edit wars (?), it would be best to remove all references to non-Buddhist material (like Upanishads) and the interpretation therein. Since this is about God in Buddhism it is enough to start with Buddha's interpretation of Brahma/brahman (Brahman in Earliest Buddhism: Digha Nikaya etc would be ok, but remove first three paragraphs). Nik, 193.77.150.213 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Solitary Father

The Hebrew religion developed the concept of a single paternal God, possessing personality and omnipotence. The Islamic religion, as well as Christianity, both derived from the Hebrew, have a similar concept. All other religions do not have this concept. To attribute such monotheism to other religions is to mistakenly project the Hebrew-Christian-Islamic God onto religions in which it simply does not exist.Lestrade 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Proper translation of "Brahmabhutena attano" with sources

In the "In Brahman in Earlist Buddhism" section, I came upon "Brahmabhutena attano" as "The Soul is having become Brahman". What I wanted to know is if the translation strictly meant "The Soul is having become Brahma", thus using Brahma instead of Brahman. I understand where the below argument comes in handy to try to place the word Brahman instead of Brahma -- For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. --

but I have issues with this convenient translation. The translation by Bhikku Bodhi seems to get at the point that Brahma should be thus translated as holy and attano as oneself, thus "oneself becomes holy" becomes the translation and that too is a viable translation then. What I am confused about is why, even if it does not necessarily make sense as "The Soul becomes Brahman", whoever edited this article took the liberty to define this as Brahman, without citing sources, and by placing his (or her) own POV of how this statement should be translated (he should at least site sources for his first point). I mean, maybe, there is a contradiction in the Pali Canon. But I am a bit worried that the contributor who edited this article did not cite a source (hopefully, a reputed Pali scholar) for this translation, since this is obviously not the translation used in any tradition of Buddhism I know of. So it looks like it was kind of edited towards giving a "Godhead" view.

Since this is a contraversial topic, I think articles should be cited (and not an unknown individual's translation of the statement).

Thanks.

I changed Brahma to Brahman. No so much as to 'correct' the article, but to make it inconsistent, so that someone with more knowledge would completely rewrite the article (which also happened it seems). I can not answer your question about that Pali statement "Brahmabhutena attano" (don't know anything about Pali), but in Sanskrit there is also a linguistical difference between Brahma and brahman: when with the root 'brahman' the Absolute is meant then the noun is neuter (nominative brahma), when the Deva Brahma is meant then the noun is of masculine gender (nominative brahmā). So information, whether brahman of Brahma is meant, is usually already expressed with the case of the noun (but not always). --Nik, 193.77.150.213 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Mahayana Section: God as Manifestation of Mind

This entire article is about God in Buddhism, yet this section ends with a discussion about the atman (Self) in the Lankavatara Sutra. Why is this here? It should be included in the atman (Buddhism) article (if it is not already included), but I really do not see any value of it being here, unless someone can update the section to explain it in terms of "God in Buddhism". Also, if this section is to be included here or elsewhere, it might be proper to note that Suzuki (in his scholarly translation of this sutra) states that the Sagathakam seems to have been tagged on later. Thanks! --Lucifereri 11:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Lucifereri, for your valid comments. I shall try to make the section you refer to more obviously relevant (give me a few days!). As for the age of the "Sagathakam" section, Suzuki in his "Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra" book says that essentially the age and nature of this whole section is a "mystery", and that it could even be older (at least in part) than the prose parts of the sutra - although he inclines to view it as later. Generally, I think, scholars tend to regards verse elements within sutras as being older than the prose parts. But in any case, I don't think we should start saying "this part of the sutra is to be disregarded because it might be later". That way lies, potentially, complete chaos and wilfulness - as we then end up saying that the bits we don't like are "later" and the bits we like are "earlier, and indeed that the whole of the Mahayana is "later" than "early Buddhism", and that "early Buddhism" is itself made up of all kinds of "earlier" and "later" compositions - to the point where we end up with nothing in our hands at all that is dependable (which is probably what some people would love - ha ha!). We have to accept the sutras in the forms in which they have been preserved (as they have been revered as Buddha-word in those forms for innumerable centuries by practising Buddhist monks). Anyway, thanks again for your comments, which I can indeed understand. All the best. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hey Tony, Thanks for taking up the task to update this section :-D! I am pretty sure the atman section that I referred to can be made relevant to this article, and I look forward to reading your update. Regarding the last comment: what I said was only a suggestion and you raise a very valid point. Anyways the last section (and I believe they usually verses at the end of sutras to relate the point of the sutra) has verses that either have absolutely nothing to do with the sutra or seem to outright contradict parts of the sutra or even contradict each other (Suzuki points specific parts out) ;). Actually after a moment's reflection, adding this information the article would probably be non-POV (in the context of this article); however, I believe that it is important to note this discrepency in the Lankavatara Sutra article (since this article pertains to the sutra itself). This is of course just a suggestion. Have fun editing! --Lucifereri 16:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

God as Manifestation of Mind

I have removed the following passage from the article -- I assume it was written in good faith by somebody is new to Wiki and unfamiliar with its requirements for style and NPOV content.

There is much room for re-interpretation of God as a Manifestation of

mind. Initially, whose mind is doing the imagining? What mind could

possibly imagine God (as in, create a imaging of God? Certainly not

the mere and feeble human mind. Buddhism does not teach against the

notion of God as such, nor does it describe the notion of God as

Supreme Truth as being any sort of impediment! At worst - it is

silent on the issue of God.

--Stephen Hodge 01:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs of clergy VS beliefs of laiety

Some how or another I've been put under the impression that while official Buddhist teaching tends to reject or stay silent on the notion of a "God," Buddha is essentially treated as such by many of the non-clergy adherents of Buddhism. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I think it would be worthwhile for anyone who knows more to mention any differences between "Official Doctrine" and "Actual Practice." Macroidtoe 04:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's correct. Buddha is God to them. This article is a huge POV. How do you report this???

I have to disagree. The majority of knowledgable Buddhists who have taken refuge and thereby become an actual Buddhist will clearly understand that Buddha is not a God.

Jmlee369 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with jmlee369Greetings, Sacca 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, God is treated as essentially an allegory by many nominal Catholics (at least here in Brazil) and is a rather vague concept to begin with, so I guess Macroidtoe's claim can be seen as correct. It shouldn't, but it probably can. Luis Dantas 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• If one means by God the specifically semitic conception of God (a Creator ex nihilo of the universe and of humans), then it would be inappropriate to label the Buddha as "God". But if one has a wider understanding of the term "God", as Eternal Reality, then that would fit with some Mahayana-sutric presentations of Buddha, as well as with some Tantric ones. Here is what the Merriam-Webster

dictionary (on-line) has to say about "God": "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind" I think the notion of the Buddha (the Dharmakaya, or "That-ness" - tathata) as Infinite Mind or as Ultimate Reality is not an outrageous one for Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism, although it is true that the vast majority of Buddhists would tend not to use the word "God" when speaking of the Buddha. Nevertheless, there are massive overlaps between the two concepts in major areas. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

H.H Dalai Lama quote

I highly suspect the authenticity of that quote, not only because of the message but also due to the language used in it. It is not typical of His Holiness, nor does it come with his seal and signature. There is no mention of the recipient and the person who added it has clearly little understanding simply by looking at their spelling of His Holiness' title. I suggest it be removed. Jmlee369 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the quote does not echo the style of the Dalai Lama's usual forms of address and comment and is surprising. It is probably bogus. However, it is just possible that the DL was indulging in an "upaya" (skilful tactic) to communicate with those who DO believe in God. It would be worthwhile contacting the office of the Dalai Lama to see if this quote is genuine. In fact, I've just written to the Secretary of the DL to have it confirmed or denied that this "Message from the Dalai Lama" is genuine! Cheers. Tony. TonyMPNS 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a geniune quote and I have offered a citation. It should stand and I will be re-adding it. Michaelkulov 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Mike. I can understand your feelings, and I don't myself at all oppose the inclusion of this statement if it is indeed genuine. I also have no problems myself with the contents of the "Message" (unlike many other Buddhists, I suspect!). The problem is that it does seem to deviate a lot (i.e. urging people to listen to God and not to live godless lives) from the type of things that the Dalai Lama normally says. The style of writing is also radically different from that normally adopted by the Dalai Lama. The website from which you have derived this "Message" gives no details of where this "Message" was first published. So I think it is best to get it checked out. No one here is douting your own sincerity in picking up this statement from the Internet and using it on Wikipedia. I totally agree with you that the statement is of great interest and relevance for the discussion of "Buddhism and God" - if it is truly from the Dalai Lama. The question is: can we trust it? I myself have no objections to the "Message" remaining on Wiki - unless it is later revealed that it is a fake. Other editors may feel differently. Anyway, I'll keep you all posted on any word I get back from the Dalai Lama's people ... Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I've just had my attention drawn (by another Wiki editor) to the Tibetan Government in Exile's official denunciation of that "Dalai Lama Message". Here is the relevant link: http://web.archive.org/web/20011217231933/http://www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/false-letter.htm.

In view of this, I think the quote should now be pulled as a fraudulent document. Best wishes to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the release was dated on September 30th, 2001, yet there is no such press release on the offical site's press archive: [1] I can't find it in the archive that Tony's link points to either: [2]

• Hi Mike. I see what you mean. I've also tried to find that rebuttal in the archives, but cannot. However, I have also tested various other older articles from that website - and they do not show up either when typed into their search engine! So I still think the "Message" is almost certainly a fraud. Maybe it's best to wait and see what response I get from the Dalai Lama's officials. Best wishes to all. Tony. TonyMPNS 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Best wishes. Michaelkulov 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo again everyone. I can now finally offer a definitive resolution of this matter as to whether the "Message from the Dalai Lama" is a fake or genuine: it is in fact a fake! I have just received back the following words from the Office of the Dalai Lama (in Dharmsala):

"The purported "Message from the Dalai Lama" on the Internet, although nice, is not from His Holiness! We have had similar cases of messages being posted in His Holiness's name. In the case of this particular message the give away is the references to God...

Warm regards, Tenzin Geyche With best wishes,

Tenzin Geyche Tethong

Office of H. H. the Dalai Lama"

So I think that settles the matter. I shall now remove the fraudulent quote! Thanks to everyone for their input and help. Best wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 10:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Buddhism teach the existence of devas?

The current text refers to the Pali Canon as "teaching" and "asserting" the existence of devas. I think it might be more accurate to say that it takes them for granted. They are part of the landscape as much as Savatthi or the Himalayas. The teachings play out on this landscape, but the landscape is not really a part of the teachings. Discuss!  :-) Alancarter 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Alan. I like your various comments and edits regarding this article. I know what you mean about the Buddha's accepting the devas as part of the spiritual landscape, as it were (I thought you expressed that very well above). In a sense, though, he does "teach" of their reality, as he speaks of them as one of the five (or six) "gatis" (reincarnational destinies) into which one can be re-born. He does not reject this idea (in the way, for example, that he rejects the idea of hereditary caste, or the idea that Brahma is the Creator of the universe). The devas are a significant part of the Mahayana Dharma - as they are often presented as protectors and even teachers of Dharma. It's always instructive to remember that it was the god, Brahma-Sahampatti, who urged the Buddha to teach the Dharma after the Buddha's Awakening and initial reluctance to do so. So I think the devas do have a pretty important role to play within Dharma - but it is true that they are not the "heart" of Dharma, so to speak. Thanks again for your really good edits and comments. I've enjoyed reading them. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahayana views

Mahayana and Theravada do not talk about God and omnipotence. This is not correct. Buddhism is about Gnosis through contemplation. It does not deny God, but does deny notions of God's omnipotence.

In other words, Buddha states clearly, God is not omnipotent or if he is he is most cruel.

Mahayana focuses on the great powers of Buddha and tries to give greater sadha, nowhere do Mahayana sutras state there is an omnipotent God.--149.4.104.38 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is not acceptable to delete a whole passage from an entry when it has been accepted by other regular Buddhist editors of Wiki for many months past adn when that passage is accurate. The information contained in that paragraph is correct. Buddhism is multi-faceted, and to try to limit it to one particular view or vision is not justified. Ignorance of certain Mahayana texts or Tantric texts is no excuse for censoring information. Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is completely acceptable to remove POV passages that are unsourced and frankly offensive from Mahayana stand point. The entire introduction is unsourced POV. --149.4.108.134 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• The passage introduces ideas that are discussed more fully later in the article, and which are sourced. To say that these ideas are offensive to the Mahayana is tantamount to saying that declarations of this nature from the Buddha himself in the relevant scriptures are offensive, which is of course absurd. To say that the notion of an uncreated and omnipresent Ground of Reality is offensive to Mahayana Buddhism is to betray a woefully limited knowledge-base of the Mahayana - and especially of Tantric texts. The bias would be in excluding such information from the article - not in including it. Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think that it might still be important to include citations in the introduction (even if there are citations elsewhere in the article). For example, the statement "he can be equated to a mystical notion of immanent and transcendent Godhead" looks very much like a POV statement without such a citation. I am not disputing the claim, I am just saying it might be important to give a citation. I also think the paragraph that follows the statement should be moved to a different section outside the introduction; one note, it might be good to also include statements from other prominent individuals (maybe the Dalai Lama, http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp) who state otherwise. I think this article also needs to refer less to sutras, which are subject to interpretation, and focus on what authors (secondary sources) state about those sutras.

In any case, I do not think it is right to delete whole sections without discussion. Thanks! --Lucifereri 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Lucifereri. Good to hear from you again! Thanks for your comments, which are generally reasonable, I think. I agree with you that the wholesale deletion of a lengthy passage is not acceptable - unless there are a number of editors demanding this on grounds of inaccuracy. It is better to make adjustments, as you say. I am happy to remove the sentence about "mystical notion of immanent and trancendent Godhead", as that could be construed as POV. I also agree with you that the quote I added (from the Zen master) would be better in a different part of the article (probably in the Mahayana section). I don't agree about the sutras, however: it is always preferable to quote from the primary texts - accurately to report what they say; "interpretations" are the business of others, not of myself. I simply report what the sutras say. Other people can then devise any interpretations they wish to have of these matters (that is up to the reader). But I can always add a few secondary-literature quotes to buttress what I write, if necessary - although I find the need to do so odd when one is quoting from the primary texts. "Interpetations" are endless. People can then argue about this or that publisher not being sufficiently scholarly; or this or that academic writer not being sufficiently specialised in a certain area, etc., etc. In my view, it is best to quote from the sutras, accurately and fairly - and let people make of them what they will. Anyway, that's my position. I certainly never delete whole swathes of other people's work on Wiki without trying to improve the passage first and discussing it with them (unlike some individuals). That behaviour is so rude! If there needs to be improvement - as you have suggested - that can be considered. I will try to amend the contested paragraph in the coming days, and add a bit more secondary-source backup. Anyhow, I appreciate your constructive comments. All my best wishes to you, Lucifereri. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo again Lucifereri. As promised, I've made some alterations (sooner than expected!) to that paragraph, and also added some secondary-source comments. I think it is good enough now. After all, other editors in this article don't necessarily give citations and sources for all their comments! Thanks again for your help, Lucifereri. Very best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, Thanks for the quick turnaround! I think the introduction looks quite a bit better already (I made some links to other wiki articles, too). The introduction still seems a bit too long, though; making a couple of section titles that describe Mahayana Buddhism with and without a concept of God would probably be beneficial, since there are multiple articles to cite either way. I really think information on specific schools of Buddhism (and Tibetian Buddhism) should not be included in the introduction. I alos wonder if there are other wikipedians who know of whether earlier non-Mahayana schools had concepts of God or not. I would really like to hear your opinion on the above comments.

Also, any additions by editors who do not give proper citations\sources should be marked with a a fact tag. One thing I will try to do is fix the citation format in the article. Thanks, --Lucifereri 03:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Lucifereri. Many thanks for your helpful input. It is good of you to add a few Wiki-links, etc. Yes, I think the Intro is better now, although mabye a bit long, as you say. I think it's best to keep the references to the schools of Buddhism, otherwise people will say: "Who believes this POV stuff? Which schools? Which representatives of Buddhism?" I know from bitter experience that there will frequently be such questions (if the complainer happens not to like the doctrine that is being expounded!). So I would prefer to keep the references to the schools. I'm very busy with other matters at present, so cannot do much more to the article at present. But as time allows, I will try to tidy up the Intro slightly. Needless to say, I want to thank you for your constructive assistance and good suggestions. Enjoy the day! All good wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Veneration and Worship of Buddhas in Theravada?

The beginning of the article says that in Theravada (as well as Mahayana), the worship and veneration of Buddhas plays a major role. Is this in fact true of Theravada? Certainly it is accurate for the Mahayana. But I'd be interested to hear what other Theravadin (or Theravada-interested) editors think about this. My own impression was that Buddhas (plural) are not especially worshipped in Theravada. But this may be a case of my own ignorance. Tony. TonyMPNS 17:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a complex question. There are many cases (I have observed, at least) where Theravadins I know worship the Buddha, but generally they tend to be those who do not really study the religion (aka, born into the religion and then follow traditions). Thus, there seems to be people who worship the Buddha and those who do not worship the Buddha; veneration still occurs for the most part, but this is not in the way of asking for protection or help. That said, I am not sure if such worhsip plays a "major role", but it generally plays some role in their religous practice. Also, many Theravadins pray to Hindu-Buddhist gods (or other culture-specific deities). I have no sources that I can cite to support that there are Theravadins who worship the Buddha, but maybe some articles\books by Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah might be helpful here. Hope this helps. --Lucifereri 04:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, Lucifereri. Your information is extremely interesting. It seems that the situation was not as straightforward as I had at first assumed. I wonder, though, whether people in the Theravada countries worship more than one Buddha? Past Buddhas or Maitreya (the Buddha to be)? Probably they just pray to Shakyamuni Buddha. Anyhow, your help is much appreciated. Thanks again! Best wishes from Tony. TonyMPNS 09:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In case this might be of interest, here's a link to A.G.S. Kariyawasam's 1995 study of contemporary Buddhist ceremonies and rituals in Sri Lanka: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/kariyawasam/wheel402.html. Chapter 8 concerns popular although seemingly non-canonical deva worship.

I think somewhere in the Kariyawasam text (or is it in Harvey, 1990, around p. 172?) that there is a distinction made between "worship" and "veneration." Traditional Theravada practices venerate the Buddha deeply, strongly, frequently -- it "plays a major role." "Worship" seems to be something else, something held at a distance (or so I recall), though as Lucifereri points out, this may be a distinction between native practitioners and scholastically oriented converts. (Without giving it much thought, in my own personal practice, it at times feels "worshipful" -- I daily recite a chant which mentons my bowing to the incomparable dust of the Buddha's feet [in Pali: Uttamaṅgena vandehaṃ pādapaṃsu-varuttamaṃ] and, in fact, I see that an English translation reads "With my bows I humbly worship, the blessed dust on His sacred feet" at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/vandana02.pdf, p. 3 -- thought this somehow feels vastly different from my former worshipping of God in my native Judaism....)

Hope the link above is of interest & thanks for developing this exceedingly interesting article! Baby awake, GTG, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Having another few moments, I've tried to scan Harvey's "An Introduction to Buddhism" (1990) for a distinction between veneration and worship without success. Nonetheless, I came across the following passage (p. 179) that I thought might have some pertinence:

"Images always function as reminders of the spiritual qualities of holy beings, if in no other way. When a Theravadin, for example, expresses devotion before an image of Gotama Buddha, he is reminded of his struggle for enlightenment, his virtues, his teachings, and the ideal he represents. He joyfully recollects the Buddha, developing a warm heart and a pure mind. The spritual qualities expressed by the form of a good image also help to stimulate the arising of such qualities in one who contemplates it."

Possibly closer to clarifying a distinction? With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

God in Buddhism debate

"What, of course, is absolute nonsense. Even within the Pali Canon the Buddha declares that the whole world, its foundation and cessation, is found and accomplished within this human body. The tantras, as elaborate buddhist teachings, specify and explain these teachings, as it is the mind that is the foundation of the world. There is no world without mind. So, liberation can only be achieved by transcending the world in one's own mind. Texts that are clearly influenced by hinduist ideas, should therefore be read carefully!

A creator god is absolutely denied in all today existing buddhist doctrines. If an absolute creator god would exist, the attainment of liberation would be impossible as the will of such a god could not be undone. There would be no way out of such a creation."

The above passage was added at the end of this article which does not seem to represent a NPOV -- it seems more appropriate to shift it to this discussion page. Additionally, the writer does not seem to have read the various caveats concerning the Buddhist views on a creator God.--Stephen Hodge 18:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you, Unnamed Contributor, for your stimulating comments at the end of my "God in Buddhism" entry.

// I am very sorry, that I have messed up *your* "God in Buddhism" entry. I thought Wikipedia is public - sorry!

As you might expect, I don’t quite share all your views. I think they should be placed on this Discussion page rather than appended to the main article, as they do not even attempt to be balanced in tone or content.

// I am a studied and practicing 'tantric' buddhist (tibetan) and therefore I know that the idea of an absolute creator god is strongly denied in Buddhism, because of the given reasons. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia should be about facts and not about some peoples believes. You are free to believe what you like, but don't claim that your personnel opinion represents a valid buddhist philosophical view! Your uncritical citations of certain passages of buddhist tantras shows that you have not studied tantric doctrines! If you would have, you would know that tantric texts need interpretation.

I would be grateful if you could either move your remarks to this Discussion Page or re-write them to make them more suitable for the main entry. Thanks! Let me make a few comments now about what you have written:

1) You claim that what I have written on the link between Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism and panentheism etc. “is absolute nonsense”. This is an opinion which you are entitled to, of course; but I find it disappointingly contrary to the spirit of Buddhism to use such rather intemperate and intolerant language in the context of a public discussion of Buddhist philosophy.

// Buddhism is not soft or weak concerning facts! Please, distinguish facts from your 'believes'.

2) You speak of “even within the Pali Canon”: the whole point of the Mahayana and particularly the Tantras is that they go beyond the basic teachings enshrined in the Pali Canon or agamas; they purport to reveal dimensions of Reality which had only been hinted at in the earlier agamas.

// ??? Do you claim now that the Pali Canon is not valid? The tantras are more elaborate than the Pali Canon in certain aspects, but they do not invalidate the principal teachings, they only have different interpretations than other schools of Buddhism. Especially beginners should not neglect the 'hinayana' teachings (what is part of the Bodhisattva Vow, not to neglect them!) as they describe the 'outline' of this great doctrine.

3) You and I might actually agree on the idea that mind is the basis of all, from key Buddhist perspectives; the difference between us, I suspect, would be on the question of which mind we are speaking of here: whereas you perhaps see mind in this area of Buddhism as referring to the ordinary mind of each unawakened being (with nothing numinous or noumenal implied beyond that), I would understand the teachings on the pure, radiant stainless mind to refer to the Buddha-Mind or Principle of Bodhi, void of all the moral and perceptual contaminants that make of us “unawakened” rather than “awakened” beings. This ultimate Buddhic Mind - which appears in various modalities in the Mahayana sutras and Tantras under a variety of images (e.g. Buddha-dhatu, Tathagatagarbha, Nirvana, Bodhi, Alaya …) - can be seen as a universally present, intelligent support or ground of all things (all "dharmas"), and as such could be viewed as a form of Godhead, if one defines Godhead as uncreated, deathless, omniscient and omnipresent Ultimate Reality. I realise, though, that many Buddhists feel uneasy with such an understanding of the Mahayana Dharma - but that is another matter, of course.

// you were citing certain passages from tantric texts that appear to describe an absolute creator god - really they describe, in tantric hidden terminology - the mind! The mind, as it is, *is* enlighted according to the third turning of the wheel. This is a fact of this doctrine and has nothing to do with my opinion. It also does not mean a 'personal' mind, what is an unenlighted mind blinded by the ignorance of a 'self' or 'inherent existence'. But this unenlighted mind is part of the true nature, otherwise there wouldn't be delusion. Buddhist students always have to guard themselves not to fall into one of the extremes of eternalism or nihilism!

4) You speak of “texts that are clearly influenced by hinduist ideas”. It is actually not at all certain that these texts (e.g. the Nirvana Sutra, and the various Tantras) were influenced by Hinduism; in fact, it is quite possible that it was Buddhism which influenced “Hinduism” in some of these areas. Certainly the Nirvana Sutra and the All-Creating King Tantra do not avowedly pledge any allegiance whatsoever to Brahmanist or Hindu notions (indeed, in the Nirvana Sutra, the teachings of the tirthikas – the heterodox religious sects – are strongly inveighed against). It is true, though, that there appear to be shared imageries and some overlap of meditative experience as between some of the Buddhist scriptures and a number of texts from “Hinduism”. The degree of "influence" one way or the other, however, is extremely difficult to prove.

// Sorry, I meant texts influenced by todays hinduist views interpreting buddhist tantric texts in a hinduist way. Indeed, modern Hinduism was greatly influenced by the Buddha. (see 'Frauwallner')

5) Such texts as you label “Hindu-influenced” “should be read very carefully”, you say. I quite agree with you! And that is why I have spent the last 20 years of my life doing just that!

// My congratulations! So, I hope you know now, that if you want to study tantric texts you need to share the living tradition of such texts. There are good reasons why they are secret.

6) “A creator God is absolutely denied in all today’s existing Buddhist doctrines”, you say. Well, although I think most Buddhists would probably agree with you, it depends what you mean precisely by a “creator God” (certainly the Buddhas do create or emanate all kinds of worlds, mind-endowed forms and creatures, etc. in the sphere of their Buddha-Paradises and in the context of other miracles). But actually, in my article on “God in Buddhism”, I was not necessarily arguing that there is a strong notion of a “Creator God” in Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism - although it seems to me that the All-Creating King Tantra (note its very title!) comes very close to the idea of a sole Creative Universal Emanating Mind; no, rather I was trying to point out that certain Mahayana/Tantric Buddhist scriptures do express the idea of an eternal, blissful, knowing, benevolent, sovereign Reality which underlies all phenomena and transcends all temporalities and into which the Bodhisattva enters at the moment of full Awakening, to become “Buddha” or “Tathagata”. It seems to me not unreasonable to apply a broad definition of “God” to this timeless and deathless supra-skandhaic Reality. Another term for it within Buddhism is “Adibuddha” - the primordial Buddha.

// That's why I wrote 'absolute' creator god. Buddhism does not deny 'creators' or 'gods'. Hey, we human beings are creators, aren't we? In the Pali Canon there are some suttas describing how the Buddha tames Brahma gods, who think they are the creators of the universe. There it is explained why they think that (and why it is wrong) and the Buddha tames them by showing that he can *create* conditions that they cannot undo, due to his diamond-like powers.

7) You write that “if an absolute Creator God existed, the attainment of Liberation would be impossible”. I don’t think that this necessarily follows. If such a God were Absolute (absolute power, absolute knowledge, etc.), it could easily arrange for beings to attain Liberation from suffering (which is what is usually meant by liberation within Buddhist discourse). Such a God could do anything it wished - bring about any outcome, including that of its creatures’ eventual Liberation from all pain. Why not? But in fact, I have not been arguing for that kind of very Christian, anthropomorphic vision of God. My main concern in this Wiki entry was to show that there are strands of mystical doctrine within Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism which can legitimately be interpreted as panentheistic in nature. Others (such as yourself) may well interpret matters differently. But I myself would never dream of dismissing your views as “absolute nonsense”!

// Well, I was not arguing against a 'polytheistic' notion of Buddhism. This includes *all* buddhist traditions (well, of course, I don't know about a new atheistic western form of Buddhism). Buddhism is certainly polytheistic as the Buddha himself described many kinds of gods and how they come into existence and how their existence ends! But a buddhist does not take refuge to such gods! We take refuge to the three jewels!

// Well, is an absolute creator god completely impossible... well, maybe one who is also very stupid could be possible. Most buddhist scholars would agree that it is very stupid to create beings that then need liberation. Why not creating them liberated? That is not possible, maybe? Well, then there is no absolute creation...

// So, I would really ask you to make clear in your article that such an absolute creator god is denied by all serious contemporary buddhist traditions. Or give some examples of those who do! Hey, if you are also an academic, then you should know better! --- Rainer Dickermann

All good wishes to you. - Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 09:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) *********************************************************

• Hallo Rainer, thanks for your further remarks and clarifications. I don't think that we are actually in so much disagreement as it may at first appear. Just briefly on the "my entry" aspect: I'm not trying to claim proprietorial rights over this whole subject (that would be ridiculous), but the fact is that this "God in Buddhism" entry is indeed "my" entry, as I created it for the very first time on Wiki - so it is factually correct to describe the text of that entry as mine! But you are quite right that this is a public domain, so others are encouraged to contribute and debate - naturally!.

Now, on to your more important, substantive points: nowhere in the entry have I said that the Buddha was an absolute Creator God. It is rather yourself who have raised this issue. I was more concerned to give expression to the idea of an ultimate sustaining Reality (which can be named in various inadequate ways - Godhead being one of the more Western terms, along with the more specifically Buddhist "Tathata", "Nirvana", "Buddha", etc.) which is an intelligent, beneficent, indestructible Essence or Soul (the Buddhic "atman" of the Nirvana Sutra) of all that is. The Awakened Mind of which you yourself speak is completely compatible with that. It is not "my" awakened mind, nor "your" awakened mind, nor "her" awakened mind: it is just Mind-that-Is-Awake. I don't see any conflict here between us. This ultimate Reality - however we term it - is the eternal Truth ("Dharma"/ "tattva"/ "satya") which is characterised by bliss, purity, benevolence, compassion and omniscience (along with numerous other Buddha-qualities). It is not unreasonable to point to affinities and resonances between that Buddhist notion of Reality and the (Western) concept of an ultimate Godhead or panentheistic Ground of Being. One of the valuable possible functions of Wikipedia is to present areas of information which are frequently not elaborated upon in more "conventional" encylopaedias. Discussion is thus encouraged. Although you obviously don't like what I wrote in the "God in Buddhism" article (which is your prerogative, of course), I think that your opposition to it is based on a misreading of my text. I was not arguing that the Buddha is an Absolute Creator God (in the Judaic/Christian/Muslim sense). "God" does not necessarily have to be an Absolute Creator - but can be the omniscient "holding" Source or Matrix of all that is - whether that Source be termed "Mind" or "No-Mind" (as with some Zen teachers). It is in that sense that I spoke of "God in Buddhism". Best regards to you. - Tony TonyMPNS 15:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC) --- If I may jump in here, I do know that there are many followers of westernized Buddhism who do believe in a creator/single god (I am an example). I'm a member of one of the largest online Buddhism communities and on there the subject is pretty much split with some people saying that if you believe in God then that is a contradiction and you "can't" be a Buddhist. Other people say that as long as you aren't clinging to the notion of God as if he is going to fix your life then it does not contradict a Buddhist path. Of course the argument goes that western Buddhists tend to downplay any religious parts of Buddhism like various deities and spirits and such and focus more on the philosophy. I have listened to audio talks by a number of teachers who confirm that believing in God doesn't mean you can't be a Buddhist too. I'll try to find references... Eeve (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Here's some references:

" When the Buddha was asked how the world started, he kept silent. In the religion of Buddhism we don’t have a first cause, instead we have a never ending circle of birth and death. In this world and in all worlds, there are many beginnings and ends. The model of life used in Buddhism has no starting place... It just keeps going and going.

Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about." (Kusala Bhikshu)

"In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator." (Lama Surya Das) Eeve (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No God Needed

Buddhism is not a theistic religion. It is a way of life calculated to relieve pain. The "Noble Truths" declare that life consists of suffering and they prescribe a relief in non–willing which ends in extinction. No God. No gods.Lestrade (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Life does not consist exclusively of suffering. There is suffering which is caused by clinging to impermanent phenomena. Arrow740 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TonyMPNS

He is the editor of Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. Kosho Yamamoto, ed. Dr. Tony Page, Nirvana Publications, London, 1999-2000. According to the various website he host, he is the founder/creator of either Tathagatagarbha Buddhism. [3] or "Nirvana Sutra Buddhism". His religious belief is his business. Using wikipedia as his soapbox, especially to promote his book is against letter and spirit of wikipedia. Plus he may be a doctor of literature but he clearly is an amature/self-taught researcher of Buddhism, finding of which he seems eager to promote. Almost every interpretation he promote has no reference to verified source whatsoever. He seems oblivious to the prohibition against original research. Interpretation of actual sutra/sutta or selective quote of sutra/sutta to promote one's persona interpretation is original research. If this kind of behaviour is allowed, wikipedia become free zone to promote everyone's version of buddhism. All one need is accompany their POV edit with quote from scripture. Vapour (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this is a bit unfair. The comment above targets a user who has been more than reasonable in allowing others to change the article. But I do agree with Vapour on the fact there should be no direct citations of sutta\sutra. For example, read the first few lines of this article...it says that in the beginning, Buddhists believed everyone's true essence was in the Dhamma; the article then states that forms of "later Nikaya Buddhism" disputed this fact. The only thing cited is a passage from Aganna Sutta without any contextual information at all. One needs a good academic RS for this, not a sutta\sutra citation. Thanks! --Lucifereri (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite right. I'd add that most of the article seems to be unsourced. I've corrected/deleted some of the worst, including the ridiculous statement that Buddhism is described usually as a philosophy & occasionally as a religion: the exact opposite of the truth. Peter jackson (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing God

Somebody make the Buddhists explain these things:

1. If there's no God, then who remembers the karma of each individual?
2. If there's no God, then who remembers the state of the universe?
3. If there's no God, then who handles the prayers made in the name of Buddha?
4. If there's no God, then who gave Buddha the revelations that Buddha had?
5. Etc., etc.

Buddhism is nothing but a badly amputated version of Hinduism. It lacks more than it offers! Buddhism is really mostly a proof of how much havoc a single Schizophrenic dude (Buddha) can make upon the world. Half a billion people who today deny God and think that it is sensible and simply karma when animals are pithed and dissected. Buddha needed psychiatric care, not fame! Nothing in Buddhism stands up to even the simplest, most gentle philosophical proddings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.195.1 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quick pointers from a mostly Theravada perspective:

1. Who remembers kamma? See Vinnana and Rebirth (Buddhism).
2. Who remembers the state of the universe? In terms of our own universe, I don't know of the Buddhist perspective being substantially different than that of Western physicists'.
3. Who handles prayers made to the Buddha? From a Theravada viewpoint, there is no handling. Buddhist prayers are not the same as Christian. You might want to take a look at, for instance, Puja (Buddhism) or Offering (Buddhism).
4. Who gave the Buddha the revelations he had? See perhaps Rebirth (Buddhism) and Gautama Buddha.
5. Etc., etc.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I overlook a significant concern expressed in your initial post that I think is important. You write in part that Buddhists "think that it is sensible and simply karma when animals are pithed and dissected."

While karma, like Western and other notions of causality, can attempt to explain the past basis for current or future suffering, karma is not meant to suppress other people's compassionate responses to suffering. Most Buddhists, like most other people, make compassionate response to others' suffering a cornerstone of their practice. Even in the ancient moral codes (Vinaya), my incomplete recollection (and someone feel free to correct me) is that some monks released non-human animals from a trap, thus constituting "stealing" (and thus breaking a basic Buddhist moral precept); but, the monks were not punished as it was deemed that the rightness of their compassionate response (to non-humans) outweighed their (inter-human) violation. Tangentialy, less traditionally, I think that it is also worth noting that a significant portion of Buddhists (especially Western converts, who may or may not be following their tradition's practice) aspire to vegetarianism. (I've been a vegan since around 1992.) Even just on the human level, of course, you can see Buddhists (along with members of other religions and the non-religious) responding to tsunamis and war and famine and the hardships of prison, etc., etc.

I'm wondering if there is a particular thing you read or a discussion you had that prompted your query. Perhaps it would be beneficial if we could better understand the source of your concern.

Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd put a slightly different gloss on the vinaya. At any rate, it's not a question of punishment. The Buddha rules that the monks in question have not committed an offence. Peter jackson (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I shouldn't do this but I can't resist. If there is a God and he created the universe, who created God? Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is one of the philosophical questions asked in Buddhist circles in response to the question on 'how can the universe be beginningless?'. I suppose most people would like to have a beginning of sorts, but nobody can even imagine it... rudy (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deities and Buddhism or Creationism and Buddhism

Why "God" (in singular), this can be forked on the titles mentioned above... but I've not read the article yet ...I'm focusing now on changing Buddhism--Esteban Barahona (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bhagavat Gita 8:16

Is the following bolded statement actually correct?

Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). This is similar to Krishna's teaching to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita 8.16.

Isn't this about the messenger of God? Wiki-uk (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonangpas

Some tantras depict the Buddha on a cosmological scale and in cosmogonic terms as the emanator of all beings and all universes (see, for instance, the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra). This primordial Buddha is viewed by the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism as absolute, eternal, omnipresent, supreme knowingness or awareness (jnana) beyond the limitations of ordinary consciousness. The Tibetan adept, Dolpopa, writes: "It is absolute, never relative. It is the true nature ... It is gnosis, never consciousness. It is pure, never impure. It is a sublime Self, never a nothingness ... It is Buddha, never a sentient being."

Moved to talk because it didn't belong in the intro, because they basically aren't any Jonangpas and they were never very influential in Tibet. Mitsube (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This user obviously didn't even bother to look at the Wiki article on the Jonangpa where it says:

"In accordance with the observation that "victors write history" the Jonangpa were until recently thought to be an extinct heretical sect. Thus, Tibetologists were astonished when fieldwork turned up several active Jonangpa monasteries, including the main monastery called Tsangwa located in Tibet, Dzamthang County, Sichuan, China. Almost 40 monasteries, comprising about 5,000 monks, have subsequently been found, including some in the Amdo and Gyarong districts of Qinghai and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Presumably these remnants survived because they were far from the Gelugpa capital at Lhasa and closer to sympathetic powers in Qing Dynasty China.

Interestingly, one of the primary supporters of the Jonang lineage in exile has been the 14th Dalai Lama of the Gelugpa. The Dalai Lama donated buildings in Himachal Pradesh state in Shimla, India for use as a Jonang monastery (now known as Thakten Puntsok Ling) and has visited during one of His recent teaching tours. The Karmapa of the Karma Kagyu lineage has visited there as well.

The Jonang tradition has recently officially registered with the Tibetan Government in exile to be recognized as the fifth living Buddhist tradition of Tibet. The 14th Dalai Lama assigned Khalkha Jetsun Dampa Rinpoche or the 'Bogd Gegeen' of Mongolia (who is an incarnation of Taranatha) as the leader of the Jonang tradition."

Well done, Mitsube ! Now put it back in the article please. -- अनाम गुमनाम 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

God is not needed

Buddhism may not believe in the "One God" concept, however it is a religion. Just because it does not consist of one god or because there wasn't a god who made the world, does not declassify it as a religion. I suggest that it is changed from "Is considered to be a religion by some" to "Is a religion"

AriannaXO (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing such as this has been developed and retained after long repeated (and repetitive) discussion of Buddhism-related articles. In short, if it is removed, someone is sure to come along and argue that it is not, in fact, a religion at all and that it should never be referred to as such (or some comparable view). See the lead and ref number 2 at Buddhism and the archives of its talk page. /Ninly (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Define Term

ETYMOLOGY OF GOD WILL GET CUT- BECAUSE SOME LEARNED PEOPLE IN THE PAST HAVE TRACED THE WORD GOD TO THE BUDDHA'S FAMILY NAME GODAMA- this cutting is nothing but Christians, and the unconsious followers of its traditions, essentially burning books

The author of the book, Origin of Language and Myths, claimed that the word good was derived from god (opposite Muller and Grimm), and that God derived from the Buddha's family name of Gotama, Gautama, Codama, or Godamo. He cites the work of philologists such as Max Muller, Sir William Jones, and historians such as Godfrey Higgins among others who claimed Odin, Woden, Hu, and Buddwas were all variations of the Buddha's name. He further claimed that the English words foot and boot were also named directly after the Buddha and were "radically" the same as the word god. The philologist also claims that the Buddhist Go of Godama was related to the Buddha's prefix of AD, and that both at one time represented the sun.

But there were several other who also came to this conclusion before the 20th cent.; “I have shown elsewhere that the English word God, the German Gott, the Persian Bhoda and the Hindustani Khuda are all derived from the same root as that which appears in Celtic Aeddon or Guydion, the Germanin Odin, Woden or Goutan and the Indian Buddha or Gotama” (Congres international des americanistes-John Campbell page 353The most popular etymology of the word God supposed two possible roots, the Sanskrit Huta which in P.I.E. is assigned a reconstructed root of Ghut and the Greek which Khein with a assingned P.I>E. root of Ghu-ta. The Greek Ghu-ta is said to mean "pour-out" and the Sanskrit is believed to stand for "a sacrifice of Agni". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.89.159 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what this article strongly needs is to explore right away what is meant by "God." If the most relevant term is not defined, then the article will continue to be somewhat incoherent. Sylvain1972 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said Sylvain1972, by not defining "God" this whole article is nothing but the reflections of western partialism from many editors who believe themselves to be impartial. The first use of the word God was a title assigned to Odin, Wooden. And it was not without reason that Sir William Jones and Godfrey Higgins, among other scholars, believed Odin, or Wooden to be a knock-off of the Buddha. If the Christians claim that Jesus is "God" incarnate, and the Jews regarding their hero (of Isaiah), then how could we possibly argue that the Buddha was not believed to be "God" incarnate. Here I will define God as i used it; HE sees all (Buddha) HE can be at all places at all times (Buddha), He makes a show of being born (Buddha). He lives forever (please not that the Pali Buddha does not appear to answer, but as he tells of Maitreya and other future events, etc. so we see that he is one who sees his future state and all others)

The word God itself, without question stems from the Buddha's family name of Gautama, Godama, Gotama. Why would the Buddha's family name become the title to Odin? The early Buddhist missionaries of Asoka learned that their hero was not going to gain mass appeal as an asiatic sage, so just as the authors of the Jesus gospels did, the Buddha morphed with legend and lore. As Usual with the Buddha's key epithets Gotama has several relavant meanings just as Buddha can also mean "happened" -sans Butho, Buddhagosha lists 8 relevant meanings to Tathagata but he overlooks the most obvious such as Ta-tha-ghata(ghrta and later Christos of Grk.)Ta=Buddha tha=the ghata = Christ. The Tathagata to Tathaghata is a mispelling like one of the earliest Buddhist texts mispelled as Mahapadana which should be spelled Mahaphadana. Godama can mean goat-tamer and the Pali texts mention how people refer to him as someone who steers the bullocks, just as Jesus was seen as a shepard of men. The word Godama appears on the Newton stone, a ancient Scottish stone tablet, as Jodama, which is found next to the Buddhist cross (svastika)76.117.89.159 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) . This along with the early Christian church father Origin saying that Britain was Celtic/Buddhist before Christianity should make clear Buddhisms footing in the west.

There are many, many other fabrications in this wiki "article". The Buddha was seen as someone who pulled people away from Yama, the king of death who would judge people on their karma. The Buddha and his saints could intercede Yama's judgment, in the PAli and Sanskrit this is called 'transfer of merit'. Just as Jesus was believed to have redeemed those who believed in them, so to can the Buddhist believer receive the good karma from Buddhists who gained it through suffering. Could go on and on, but there can be no doubt that this article is a genuine fraud.76.117.89.159 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"God," with a capital G, is an omnipotent being who possesses personality. The "G" is capitalized because it is the proper name of a real or imagined person.

An impersonal God is no God at all, but merely a word wrongly used, a misconception … anthropomorphism is in every way an essential characteristic of theism.

— Schopenhauer,Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," §13

Lestrade 17:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

• I have to disagree. I am sure that there are pages which discuss the various meanings of the word God already. The (currently!) existing text covers a good range of different meanings in a clear way, which is what you would hope for in an encyclopedia entry.

Alancarter 10:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the Buddha refuse to answer questions about God?

This seems to be a popular sentiment, but I have never seen a reference to this in any sutra. It strikes me as one of those urban legends that grows out of the desire to be eccumenical when discussing religion with theists. It definately seems apologetic - "hey, I know you believe in God and I don't want to offend you, so let's just say that the Buddha didn't address the issue and leave it up in the air as a possibility" The Buddha did, famously, refuse to answer a specific question about the "self", but that refusal was for the benefit of the person who asked the question and to make the point about asking ourselves why we want to know things - is it for our own aggrandizment or to help us gain wisdom? It had nothing to do with God, however. At any rate, if someone can cite the sutra where this discussion occurs, I would be very grateful to have the reference so I can read it for myself.

On the other hand, in the Brahmajala Sutra, the idea of God was ridiculed by the Buddha. There are other references, but try as I might, I can't find the file I have them in. If I find them, I'll post them here.Nightngle 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is not so much that the Buddha ridicules the idea of God per se in the Brahmajala Sutta - rather, he indicates in that sutta that Brahma (specifically) is not the All-Powerful, All-Seeing, All-Creator that Brahma (and others who come after him) wrongly believe he is. The Buddha does not here absolutely reject "God" (for which the general term would be a form of "Ishvara"). He simply rejects Brahma - who is a real type of being in Buddhism, not a fantasy - as being the All-Creator, All-Seeing, etc. Also, in this sutta the Buddha is mainly urging the avoidance of speculation and clinging to views - when those views are not based on full, direct knowledge. Only the Buddha has complete and perfect knowledge and thus has no need to speculate. He KNOWS. But that knowledge lies beyond mere thought. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but you don't really answer the question. In the article, there is a statement that the Buddha refused to answer questions about God, and I don't see how this statement can stand without a direct citation from a sutta. Remember that the Buddha would have no knowledge of the God of Abraham, since he had no contact with the Israelites. It seems to me that his comments about Brahma would be the best corralary. I don't know when the concept of Ishvara entered what we today call Hinduism, but remember that Hinduism itself didn't exist when the Buddha was alive. It has evolved over the intervening 2,500+ years. It strikes me that much of this article is original research and opinion as opposed to being encycolpedic. That doesn't make it bad, just perhaps, not the best for this site. Nightngle 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tweetie, there is a standard set of ten questions that the Buddha is reported to have left unanswered and these ten do not include the existence or otherwise of Īśvara. These ten are known as the ten avyākatas, typically listed in Majjhima Nikaya sutta 72. In brief, they are 1) Is the universe eternal ? 2) Is it not eternal ? 3) Is it finite ? 4) Is it infinite ? 5) Is the body the same as the soul ? 6) Is the body one thing and the soul another ? 7) Does the Tathagata exist after death ? 8) Does he not exist after death ? 9) Both ? 10) Neither ? There is also two supplementary avyākatas mentioned in Sumayutta Nikaya sutta 44.10: Is there a self ? Is there no self ? The Buddha refuses to take a position on any of these questions. But no mention of Īśvara (God)--Stephen Hodge 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Cheryl (Nightingale). Thanks for your comments. I myself agree with you that a citation would be helpful for the statement that the Buddha refused to answer questions on the existence of God (I did not write that sentence myself). I also think it is inaccurate to say that "the Buddha" did not answer questions on metaphysical matters. Which "Buddha"? The Buddha of the Pali texts/ the agamas - or the Buddha(s) of the Mahayana? in Mahayana and Tantric literature he certainly does speak of metaphysical matters. We should not fall (in the context of an encyclopaedia) into the very, very POV stance of assuming that "Buddhism" and "the Buddha" are only what Theravada Buddhists say! Also, re. the Buddha's not knowing of the God of Abraham: well, according to the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha was all-knowing - seeing both past, present and future and having sovereignty over all dharmas - so he would have known of such things. I am not arguing for this particular piece of knowledge, by the way - just saying that if one takes into account the presentation of the Buddha in the Mahayana/ Tantra, one cannot say, without qualification, that the Buddha would not have known of certain religious views, etc.
• As for the bulk of the article being "original research" and personal opinion: I don't share your view on that one, I'm afraid. I think that if one interprets the "no original research" too literally or too tightly, one would not be able to search for any quotes or citations or information on any matter - as that could be construed as "original research"! So I would share your view, Cheryl, that a citation re. Buddha's refusing to confirm or deny the existence of "God" would be useful here (I sympathise with your suspicion that this may be one of the many, many myths and inaccuracies that have built up about what "the Buddha" said or didn't say) - but unfortunately I don't really share your position on the "God in Buddhism" article overall. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I guess I've always seen the God in Buddhism arguements to be marching to the beat of a different drummer. Having been a Buddhist for most of my life, one of the things I've always thought Buddhists could agree on is that life was not created nor is it ruled or managed by any type of God/god(s)/ess(es). See Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana for examples of lists folks attempt to make from time to time in an effort to find what all schools of Buddhism can agree on. They all contain this sentiment. At any rate, I guess the mystical will always find a way back into even the most reason based religion, but in covering this phenomenon, I would like to see the citations from the suttas/sutras as the foundation of the interpretations. Afterall, what is the basis for the interpretations if not the sutras - and if the interepretations are not based on the sutras, they would be by definition original thought? Nightngle 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above -- you might have missed them.--Stephen Hodge 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Stephen and Cheryl for the ideas and comments. Helpful - especially the list of questions that the Buddha of the agamas left unanswered. I note that, as Stephen points out, there is no mention of the existence or otherwise of Ishvara (God) there, so I have removed the sentence from the Intro which said that the Buddha refused to answer questions on the existence of an Absolute Creator God. As you say, Cheryl, we really do need to get a quote or citation from the suttas for this, if this claimed "fact" exists at all. But it looks as though you were right in your original posting - that this is a "myth" that has grown up. I tend to agree with Stephen's hint (if I have not misunderstood him) that the article does adequately cite suttas and sutras, which is surely vital (I share your view on this, Cheryl, 100%). So although most Buddhists probably do not "believe in God", the situation is more subtle when we come to look at what the sutras and Tantras teach. I think the article is reasonably balanced now, in that the first part indicates in its early sections that the Absolute Creator God notion is no part of Theravada Buddhism, whereas in Mahayana and the Tantras there are ideas and implications which move closer towards, if not directly onto, the territory of an incomprehensible, all-present sustaining Power (Dharma, Buddha-dhatu, Adibuddha, etc) within all phenomena. Thanks again, Stephen and Cheryl, for your help. All the best. From Tony

The nontheism article now has stronger references to the Poisoned Arrow Parable, which is a case of Buddha talking about something that was usually simply answered with silence. - Rgrant 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence from the opening paragraph is non-NPOV: "the seemingly non-deistic and non-theistic teachings of the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, and the mystically-hued ideas attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras". The distinction between the "teachings of the Buddha" in the Pali Canon and the "mystically-hued ideas attributed to the Buddha" in Mahayana relects bias. The Pali teachings and the Mahayana sutra teaching are all equally attributed to the Buddha, according to Wiki NPOV. Also what is "mystically-hued" ? Who has decided that ideas in the Pali Canon are not mystically-hued, whereas those in some Mahayana Sutras and Tantras are. Could we have the criteria spelt out ? This again is non-NPOV. Could appropriate changes be made ?--Stephen Hodge 02:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of the few changes I would make to the excellent existing introduction. The Buddha was very far from refusing to answer questions about the existence of an Absolute God. The Brahmajala Sutta explicitly makes fun of the claims of a Brahma god to be creator of all - he is deluded into this belief by having fallen into an empty realm in an expanding universe. Since belief in Brahma as Creator was orthodoxy at the time, this is a very strong statement, equivalent to painting the Christian God or Allah as a deluded angel today. Some reference to this in the article would be a good idea.

Alancarter 10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "baka brahmas" of the Brahmajala Sutra were NEVER identified in Buddhism with Ishvara/God/Brahman nor even with the Vedic Brahma in Hinduism in the first place, in fact, the very assumption would be criticized by many Comparative Religion scholars as an extremely crude anthropomorphic interpretation of God. So no, it would not be a good idea. And one more thing, being "The Creator" does not necessarily equals to being "God"(ex. Gnosticism, Platonism, some Jewish theology) so you and Nightingle assumptions were false.

lastcall12 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.205.162 (talk)

Buddhism does not affirm or deny the existence of God as understood by monotheists

This article begins by referring to the Tuttha Sutta as if it contained a refutation of monotheism. It is obvious the sutta does nothing of the sort. It speaks of a supreme being who creates suffering. The entity addressed is not well-defined and, as the creator of suffering, has nothing to do with what monotheists mean when they speak of a God.

The vast majority of mainstream Buddhist opinion is officially agnostic. Why does this article take the side of a small minority with no defense beyond the misinterpretation of one sutta? And can those who posted the link come up with nothing better than an obscure sutta?

The article should be changed utterly. Ogo (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Ogo: the opening words of the article are simply inaccurate. The problem with Wikipedia Buddhism is that a number of its key articles tend to be dominated by a smallish group of intransigent editors who adamantly insist on describing Buddhism as, essentially, atheistic and, quite literally, 'soul-less'. I have battered my head against these people for years - and in the end one gets almost nowhere, as one can produce primary text after primary text after primary text to show that Mahayana (especially Tantric) Buddhism does, for example, clearly speak of a beginningless and endless Ground of Being (indeed, even speaks of such as an ulimate person - Samantabhadra Buddha or Mahavairocana Buddha - within all phenomena); but all that is to no avail: many Wikipedia editors behave as if they KNEW (and will brook no gainsaying) that Buddhism totally, irrevocably, unconditionally and finally rejects all notions of Divinity or ultimate spiritual cosmic Essence, and is nothing less than a thorough-going brand of rational atheism. What can you do? I'll leave the answer up to yourself! Best regards Suddha (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a nuanced situation, and for the most part I think the article reflects it well, although perhaps the introduction does not. There is no "vast majority of mainstream Buddhist opinion" with an "official" position. The Nikayas/Agamas do not seem to stake our a definitive position, although the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of Brahma (the highest diety of the religious milleu) is certainly refuted. Other very important Buddhist authors (such as Vasubhandhu, as noted) do explicitly reject a creator diety, and his views are normative for much of the Mahayana traditions. On the other hand, as Suddha notes, there are Mahayana and Vajrayana concepts that have at least aspects that are quite similar to aspects of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic personal god. Although I think it is debatable to what degree Samantabhadra/Vajradhara/Mahavairocana Buddha/Adhibuddha etc are conceived as persons, despite the fact that they are personified in representation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd just note that this is a pretty good example of why sutras/suttas, as primary sources, make for unsuitable (and potentially very bad) reference support for Wikipedia content. Granted, it's difficult to find reliable secondary sources on a lot of topics, but because of the subtlety and complexity of scriptures, any claims based primarily on scriptural citation amounts to interpretation and therefore synthesis. At least in a lot of cases. /ninly_(talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that might be overstating it a little, but yes that is something to consider. However, the Nyanaponika Thera source cited in the fourth citation is a solid secondary source which very clearly backs the claims of the first paragraph, contra User:Ogo's assertion that there is "no defense beyond the misinterpretation of one sutta." In this case, I suspect there are many good secondary sources available. I hope to have the time to pursue it further. One possibility is Gunapala Dharmasiri, "A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God," which I've read is well-cited and academically rigorous. Also see An introduction to buddhism: teachings, history and practices By Peter Harvey[4], a very solid secondary source which supports and elaborates the Buddhist argument that a creator god would necessarily be the cause of suffering in the universe, and is therefore to be rejected. So this really isn't a case of an editor making some wild interpolation of his own.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think one should always be aware that there is a striking difference (or seeming difference) in perspective as between the Pali suttas and some forms of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism. One must guard against the tendency to view as 'genuine' or 'orthodox' Buddhism solely that corpus of Buddhism represented by the Pali suttas or the Theravada interpretation of them. In certain species of Tantric Buddhism, for instance, the Adi-Buddha (primordial Buddha) is seen as perfect Bodhi-Mind which radiates out, or emanates (rather than creates ex nihilo), all that is. This does not mean that each person has a separate Bodhi-Mind (that would be dualism, which is rejected by both Mahayana and Tanta), but that at the heart of all is Awake-ness (Bodhi) which is all of one flavour (eka-rasa), already present and perfect in each being and phenomenon. In his study of the Kunjed Gyalpo tantra, for example, Adriano Clemente writes on the denotation of the term 'All-Creating King' or 'All-Radiating King' (Kunjed Gyalpo): 'Its true meaning denotes our primordial state, that by its nature contains all the qualities of self-perfection together with the capacity to manifest them without needing to create them, nor rely on any effort.' (The Supreme Source, p.15). In an epigraph to that same book, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu writes: 'Reading the Kunjed Gyalpo you will often come across the word 'I': 'I am the nature of all phenomena,' 'I am the root of existence,' and so on. This 'I' is your true state: the primordial Buddha, the supreme source of manifestation." There are different ideas of Godhead (not just the Christian one of a God who exerts will to create a cosmos out of nothing), and in that sense it is inaccurate to dismiss the notion of an Absolute or Divine from the purlieus of all Buddhist doctrine. It is there in some manifestations of Buddhism - functionally, if not always explicitly - if one wishes to see it. Best wishes - Suddha (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of that, but that is a rather different point than the assertion Ogo made.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Brahma or Brahman?

Thanks to Raj for the change of "Brahma" to "Brahman". But, Raj, the texts do actually speak of the personalised god, "Brahma", in this particular sutta, rather than the universal spirit, Brahman. So I think we need to change "Brahman" back to "Brahma". Also, although there are very few people who worship Brahma these days, at the time of the Buddha, there appear to have been plenty of Brahma-worshippers in India (the situation has since changed). Apparently, what you claim about a confusion over "Brahma" and "Brahman" has more connection with the Buddhist practice of the "Brahmaviharas" (radiating out friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity to the whole world): there is a scholarly argument that what is being referred to here is indeed "Brahman" rather than "Brahma". All the best to you. Tony. TonyMPNS 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Brahman = All Hindu gods embodies this universal spirit.

Brahma = Creator God.

--69.106.178.46 (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

stressed about stress

The first paragraph states that the sole aim of spiritual practice in Buddhism is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara (i.e. nirvana). Firstly, is it accurate to say this is the sole aim? It may be the primary aim, but what about the cultivation of metta, etc.? Also, I find the definition of nirvana as the 'alleviation of stress' rather understates the goal and makes it sound like something acheivable by means of a nice bath. What is wrong with one of the more usual formualations such as 'cessation of suffering'? Stress is quite a long way down the list of synonyms normally used for dukkha. If the cited translation uses 'stress', perhaps a different citation should be chosen. Jpedant (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I wholly agree with you, Jpedant: I think 'alleviation of stress' for 'ending of dukkha' is rather weak and underplayed (I love your analogy of simply taking a nice warm bath - superb!). Firstly, 'alleviation' suggests an easing, but not necessarily a total removal of - whereas Nirvana is the total and final ending of all pain, suffering and unhappiness. Surely 'suffering' or even 'unhappiness' would be preferable to 'stress' (after all, 'sukha' - the opposite of 'dukkha' - basically means happiness). Most of all I agree with you about the customary downplaying of Nirvana (on Wikipedia in general and in this article in particular): Nirvana is not just negative (the removal of dukkha) but also a positive 'thing' (dharma) - 'the highest happiness', as the Buddha in the Dhammapada calls it. In the Mahayana, the Buddha goes even further in hinting at the grandeur and transcendence of Nirvana, saying that it is eternal happiness beyond all human comparison (see, for example, the Nirvana Sutra, where Nirvana is one with the Buddha himself and also includes the qualities of universal benevolence, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equality of regard for all beings). 'Getting rid of stress' as the entire goal of Buddhist practice would strike most general readers, I am sure, as pretty bland and unspectacular. 'The highest happiness' (i.e. higher than the happiness of 'gods and men') is far more than merely the absence of 'stress'! Best wishes to you from Suddha (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)