The Absence of God in Buddhism

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Smaragd »

Different branches of Buddhism entail many kinds of deities, but there seems to be a lack of a creator god to the extent that some misinformed Westerners in their time have called it atheism. You can see there are deities that are as if nearing the absolute more than others, but the absolute is just beyond any attributes.

I wonder if this is partly done in purpose to avoid Buddhism to branch in to similar stagnation state many branches of Christianity have gone in to. I'm especially talking about some protestant directions where knowledge of about God is not to be pursued and earthly labor must be emphasised. I remember being quite confused as a little child when I was told that you will not become an angel when you die, as that is what I was suggesting what would happen. Buddhism on the other hand seems to suggest such proespects possible for aspiring little occultists 8-) , and manages to keep the developmental procession between the lifeforms and hierarches open and clear from the start. I wonder if this has been the main reason for the absence of god in Buddhism. Do you see other reasons or conjoining reasons and concepts behind such doctrine?
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Kenazis »

Atheism is an interesting word for what it means originally and how it is used today. Any view – spiritual/religious and non-spiritual – is atheistic (absent of gods) if there is no belief in God/gods. But today theistic vs. atheistic is more often used similarly as religious/spiritual vs. mundane/profane/non-religious etc. What I mean, is saying most of the Buddhist views as atheistic is correct in the first mentioned meaning of the word. But there are later offshoot like Pure Land Buddhism (branch of Mahayana) that I see being closer to Christianity than it is to original form(s) of Buddhism.

I see main reason for the absence of God and gods in Buddhism being the result of its different emphasis to spirituality (than Christianity has). Buddhism's main goal and starting point is to end suffering in the world, method to do this is to study suffering and seek the methods to stop this. And when you start to practice this, there is no need for gods (they are just speculation, an unimportant theory). Christianity’s main emphasis is not practical ending of suffering, but to join with God (and Jesus Christ).
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Smaragd »

Kenazis wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:05 am Any view – spiritual/religious and non-spiritual – is atheistic (absent of gods) if there is no belief in God/gods. What I mean, is saying most of the Buddhist views as atheistic is correct in the first mentioned meaning of the word.
I am far from being an expert on this so I'm not entirely sure, but from the outside it seems to me that the system of buddhas, boddhisattvas etc. forms a terminology for higher entities, a system that is not far from the hierarchies of gods or angels of Hinduism and Christianity. There are some names for entities that are even shared with Hindu pantheons (for example Tara who is also present in Vajrayana). If I am not blinded by something here, the major difference seems to be emphasising that most if not all(?) of these entities were once human and thus opening the vista of possibilities for the practicing mind. But the same idea can be also found from some esoteric forms of Christianity as human beings becoming angels, although I can not rule out such ideas coming straight from Buddhism as the esoteric currents have been more open in their syncretism.

It is quite interesting to note how in Christian metaphysics Christ is the Logos - the Word - from which all creation emanates forth, and comparative studies have often suggested Avalokitesvara as a Buddhist equivalent of Christ. An interesting piece of information on the name Avalokitesvara from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:The earliest translation of the name Avalokiteśvara into Chinese by authors such as Xuanzang was as Guānzìzài (Chinese: 觀自在), not the form used in East Asian Buddhism today, Guanyin (Chinese: 觀音). It was initially thought that this was due to a lack of fluency, as Guanyin indicates the original Sanskrit form was instead Avalokitasvara, "who looked down upon sound", i.e., the cries of sentient beings who need help.
I will take the liberty to interpret the translation to note how this divinity relates to the world of creation through sound (order creating principle, an imprint of order on the chaotic state of Maya) and perhaps revealing the same idea that is behind the Christian Logos. There's also a similar distance to the world with both of these divinities. Jesus as a teacher gave the requirements which being fulfilled leads to the Kingdom of Heaven, leaving Christ to wait for the students to come to him. Similar idea is present already in this name variation of the Buddhist entity as Avalokitasvara, as it is something that awaits above, compassionately open to receive and connect to the lower sphere through sounds of sorrow, yet waiting for the students to make their own way and thus keeping the distance.
Kenazis wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:05 am And when you start to practice this, there is no need for gods (they are just speculation, an unimportant theory).
At the beginning it is indeed more important to focus on the practice that will lay out the foundation, which might build up to a temple of worship at some point. Although gods can become major distractions from reality, I must confess there in is this kind of pull of the mysticism to believe, to reverence and to seek a deity that has been important to me from the start. So I don't think it's misleading necessarily, although it can be if we get stuck on a deity and its lower forms. But this is again one point some forms of Buddhism seem to have noted from the start by focusing on practice but still having the idea of some kind of helping or focusing deities to be worked with at some points. It seems like a good foundation to try and avoid harmful relations to exotericism, dogma and other problems with the formal side of religious body, even though such problems can not be avoided completely with this or any other preparation.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Kenazis »

I really am no expert myself. I base my claims (of ”atheistic buddhism”) to idea that satipatthana sutta and theravada are (one of) the ”original sources”. And I see buddhism being originally about the mission to end suffering and seek out the true nature of universe and human. Where and when exactly higher entities enter in buddhist ideology? Does somebody here on forum know? Isn’t Vajrayana one of the later schools and born out of marriage between Tibetan Bon and Buddhism? This deities vs. no deities might be all about what school of buddhism we are talking about.
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
AnssiV
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:03 am

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by AnssiV »

I just posted a page from a book holy science which tries to explain buddhism in a way that christians could find similarities and understand its all just same same but different so to speak. viewtopic.php?p=37120#p37120 It explains the god and holy ghost through lokas.
Gu means darkness, ru means dispeller. One who dispels your darkness is a Guru.
AnssiV
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:03 am

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by AnssiV »

I just post one page more here, i think it makes it more clearer in this topic.
Attachments
244520AE-712A-4DEE-A48E-E2C0AB20020A.png
244520AE-712A-4DEE-A48E-E2C0AB20020A.png (1.11 MiB) Viewed 3620 times
Gu means darkness, ru means dispeller. One who dispels your darkness is a Guru.
AnssiV
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:03 am

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by AnssiV »

And the creator or source as you wish is sat(satan) and purusha(pirusha) as explained in these pages…
Attachments
04D09B5B-03DE-46B6-BC90-0598267F3BB3.png
04D09B5B-03DE-46B6-BC90-0598267F3BB3.png (1.12 MiB) Viewed 3605 times
19E5C579-681D-44EF-995B-65FE39EDAC6C.png
19E5C579-681D-44EF-995B-65FE39EDAC6C.png (1.27 MiB) Viewed 3605 times
93C33092-D531-4665-84CF-8FF25E5E9E96.png
93C33092-D531-4665-84CF-8FF25E5E9E96.png (1.16 MiB) Viewed 3605 times
Gu means darkness, ru means dispeller. One who dispels your darkness is a Guru.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Kenazis »

AnssiV wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:04 am And the creator or source as you wish is sat(satan) and purusha(pirusha) as explained in these pages…
What you see as the connection of sat/satya and Satan? Etymologically they have no connection?
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
AnssiV
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:03 am

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by AnssiV »

Honestly im not sure yet but Sat being eternal father (Shiva?) and Satan being the highest in satanic hierarchy is not just a coincidence to me. Perhaps etymologic needs somekind of update?
Gu means darkness, ru means dispeller. One who dispels your darkness is a Guru.
Kenazis
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:57 pm
Location: Satakunta - Limbo

Re: The Absence of God in Buddhism

Post by Kenazis »

AnssiV wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:05 pm Honestly im not sure yet but Sat being eternal father (Shiva?) and Satan being the highest in satanic hierarchy is not just a coincidence to me. Perhaps etymologic needs somekind of update?
If Sat is Shiva, then the connection to Satan is pretty clear, for Shiva and Satan can be seen as same/similar/connected gods/archetypes/forces. What comes to etymology, it is a vast field of study that like other scientific fields of study is (in a way) always in a process of update.

My "critique" about etymology is that similar doesn't mean connection. Sometimes similar sounding words are connected historically and ideologically, sometimes there's close connection while the words sounds/looks superficially very different, and sometimes very similar words really have no historical connection whatsoever. These things are what etymology studies and the style for example of Wettenhovi-Aspa is just seeing the outer form of words and connecting them just based on that. We can take very similar words in Finnish (pappi,happi,tappi,mappi,sappi,lappi...) and see that they still have no ideological or meaningful connections to each other. Except of course if you subjectively have or want their connection, but this goes again the topic of subjective, inter-subjective and objective "worlds".
"We live for the woods and the moon and the night"
Locked