Dondi
Well-Known Member
Does Buddhism believe in any kind of intelligent creation of the universe? Or is it all a mindless accident? What's your take?
Buddhist view of the origin of the universe
- Thread starter Dondi
- Start date
Miss Amy
Amy
My take is that no, there is no "higher power." That is part of why buddhism is not truly considered a religion. I am still learning and discovering though...
Francis king
Well-Known Member
buddha said, in the nikkaya sutra (i think! might be wrong though, I'll check it out later and let u know, I have it written down somewhere) that
"..there is an uncreated, undying, within the universe..."
so... maybe that was Buddha acknowledging god, but, as buddhism wasn't about worshipping god, but about the end of suffering, I suppose God is an irrelevance in that respect and Buddha reputedly "turned away from teaching doctrine" about the Ultimate truth... as his students didnt need it, they needed instead the medicine of dharma.. just my take on it
"..there is an uncreated, undying, within the universe..."
so... maybe that was Buddha acknowledging god, but, as buddhism wasn't about worshipping god, but about the end of suffering, I suppose God is an irrelevance in that respect and Buddha reputedly "turned away from teaching doctrine" about the Ultimate truth... as his students didnt need it, they needed instead the medicine of dharma.. just my take on it
Hi Dondi!
Fancy seeing you here!
Well I’m usually more concerned with what’s for tea but I must have read something about this sometime! “My take” is that one has to consider the cultural milieu in which the historical figure of the Buddha lived. In other words, I’m not sure there could be a purely “Buddhist” notion of cosmology, as his ideas would have been, to a greater or lesser extent, influenced by the ideas in India at the time. But no doubt there are texts that describe Buddhist "creation myths".
Pre-waffle aside I think the general "Buddhist" idea is that the universe is cyclic over vast time periods, undergoing periods of evolution and decline. In modern scientific terms this may coincide with ideas of the big bang, entropy, heat death of the universe or any number of other fancy notions no doubt. The idea that follows from this is that time is cyclic and (warming to my completely fictitious theme) probably relates to notions of rebirth (another idea current at the Buddha’s time under the guise of reincarnation of the soul). All of which seems to suggest, in your words, mindless accident rather than intelligent creation do you think? After considering all this I still think that it is more important for me to think about what’s for tea!
s.
I think it is well to remember that "Buddhism" is not one great monolithic structure and teaching that has remained constant for 2500 years.
There is a distinct division between "Theravada" and "Mahayana", though the split becomes decidedly hazy at times............
As far as Theravada is concerned, a primary text would be Udana 8:3........
There is...........a not-born, a not-bought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If.......there were not then there would be no escape from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Condensed)
Once we move into Mahayana, there is talk of the Dharmakaya, which literally means "body or system of being" and is the ultimate reality that underlies all particular phenomena. Within Mahayana this idea has developed in various ways.............with the Dharmakaya as "love" and "wisdom", as "suchness", even becoming an object of worship. This can be seen - or not! - as the "dilution" of the Dharma for the masses! (Yet a "creator God" distinct from "his" creation? No.)
For myself, I believe that it is important never to lose entirely the Theravada perspective of the "Intelligent Heart".......
Imagine you have been shot with a poisoned arrow. You are lying on the ground, getting weaker and weaker, as your life-blood drains out of you and awareness ebbs away. You have a choice. You can either examine the arrow, asking yourself who fired it, and why, from which direction it came and of what it is made - this is the response of the philosopher or the theologian to the human predicament. Or you can pull the arrow out immediately. This is the way of the Buddhist.
This is based upon the seminal Theravada scripture, the Majjhima Nikaya, sutta 63, wherein the Buddha states just what he has declared and what he has not declared, and the reasons why.
What has the Buddha not declared? That the world is eternal or not........that the world is finite, or not.........that the soul is the same as the body, or not.............that after death the "liberated one" exists, or not.
And why? Because such is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana.
And what has the Buddha declared?
That this is suffering, that this is the origin of suffering, that this is the cessation of suffering, that this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering (This referring to the Four Noble Truths)
A final word.......I would say that Buddhism more asserts that the universe IS "intelligent" rather than that it has been created by an intelligence.
There is a distinct division between "Theravada" and "Mahayana", though the split becomes decidedly hazy at times............
As far as Theravada is concerned, a primary text would be Udana 8:3........
There is...........a not-born, a not-bought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If.......there were not then there would be no escape from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Condensed)
Once we move into Mahayana, there is talk of the Dharmakaya, which literally means "body or system of being" and is the ultimate reality that underlies all particular phenomena. Within Mahayana this idea has developed in various ways.............with the Dharmakaya as "love" and "wisdom", as "suchness", even becoming an object of worship. This can be seen - or not! - as the "dilution" of the Dharma for the masses! (Yet a "creator God" distinct from "his" creation? No.)
For myself, I believe that it is important never to lose entirely the Theravada perspective of the "Intelligent Heart".......
Imagine you have been shot with a poisoned arrow. You are lying on the ground, getting weaker and weaker, as your life-blood drains out of you and awareness ebbs away. You have a choice. You can either examine the arrow, asking yourself who fired it, and why, from which direction it came and of what it is made - this is the response of the philosopher or the theologian to the human predicament. Or you can pull the arrow out immediately. This is the way of the Buddhist.
This is based upon the seminal Theravada scripture, the Majjhima Nikaya, sutta 63, wherein the Buddha states just what he has declared and what he has not declared, and the reasons why.
What has the Buddha not declared? That the world is eternal or not........that the world is finite, or not.........that the soul is the same as the body, or not.............that after death the "liberated one" exists, or not.
And why? Because such is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana.
And what has the Buddha declared?
That this is suffering, that this is the origin of suffering, that this is the cessation of suffering, that this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering (This referring to the Four Noble Truths)
A final word.......I would say that Buddhism more asserts that the universe IS "intelligent" rather than that it has been created by an intelligence.
Hi,
Having read this found this lurking on my PC; don't know why, it appears to be from Wiki.
Fourteen unanswerable questions
Fourteen unanswerable questions in Buddhism refers to the fourteen common philosophical questions at the Buddha's time, that Buddha refused to give an answer to.
Questions referring to the world: concerning the existence of the world in time
- Is the world eternal?
- or not?
- or both?
- or neither?
- Is the world finite?
- or not?
- or both?
- or neither?
- Does the Tathagata exist after death?
- or not?
- or both?
- or neither?
- Is the self identical with the body?
- or is it different from the body?
The Buddha remained silent when asked these fourteen questions. He described them as a net and refused to be drawn into such a net of theories, speculations, and dogmas. He said that it was because he was free of the bondage of all theories and dogmas that he had attained liberation. Such speculations, he said, are attended by fever, unease, bewilderment, and suffering, and it is by freeing oneself of them that one achieves liberation.
Have you ever been to Peterborough?
my own home town gives me enough to doubt...........thanks for the laugh! (Though if you want real doubt try Basildon!)
P.S. hey, your not trying another hi-jack are you.........?
Miss Amy
Amy
So then, I have a question, isn't the fact that Buddhists' don't believe in a higher power part of why Buddhism is not considered a religion? I came across a lot of information that referred to Buddhism more as a "school of thought" or a "system of beliefs" than a true religion.
Any thoughts on that...
Any thoughts on that...
Miss Amy,
Stephen Batchelor has some thoughts on this...............
(In the Buddha's first sermon he speaks as follows)......Anguish is to be understood, its origins to be let go of, its cessation to be realized, and the path to be cultivated................Despite the Buddha's own succinct account of his awakening, it has become represented as something quite different. Awakening has become a mystical experience, a moment of transcendent revelation of the Truth....over time, increasing emphasis has been placed on a single Absolute Truth, such as the "Deathless", the "Void", "Nirvana", rather than on an interwoven complex of truths.
And the crucial distinction that each truth requires being acted upon in its own particular way.......understanding anguish, letting go of its origins, realizing its cessation, and cultivating the path.........has been relegated to the margins of specialist doctrinal knowledge.................Yet in failing to make this distinction, four enobling truths to be acted upon are neatly turned into four propositions to be believed............At precisely this juncture, Buddhism becomes a religion. A Buddhist is someone who believes these four propositions. In leveling out these truths into propositions that claim to be true, Buddhists are distinguished from Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, who believe different sets of propositions. The four enobling truths become principal dogmas of the belief system known as "Buddhism".
Also, I would say that in regard to "not believing in a higher power", one must always bear in mind the anatta teachings (no-self) which create - via experience of them - a different climate of thought regarding "higher" and "lower"............what is anything higher and lower towards?
Hi,
In the way you phrase this, in the "Christian" West the words religion and creator deity are practically essential partners which is why some might say Buddhism is not a religion.
Prof. Smart, famous in the field of religious studies came up with a shopping list of requirements for a religion:
- Experience - "Religious experience," very non-ordinary
- Social - More than one person claiming Experience
- Narrative - Story of Experience for later participants
- Dogma - Beliefs, must be rational and logical within entire system
- Ethical - Behaviours that correspond to beliefs
- Ritual - Repeated access to Experience
- Material - Material manifestation for participants
Under these criteria, Buddhism (a 19th century Western term!) could be described as religion.
So you can view it as a religion or not. It is both perhaps! Or neither! Maybe something else...
Too much coffee methinks...
s.
Miss Amy
Amy
I think that the best answer is either both or neither.
But who knows, it seems as though I in my western thinking have tried to fit, that which cannot, into the box of my current knowledge.
But who knows, it seems as though I in my western thinking have tried to fit, that which cannot, into the box of my current knowledge.
zeras
Established Member
Asalaamulikum,
Hmm, couple of things I want to mention about Buddhism, I noticed that Sakyaimuni aka Siddartha Buddha, was likly part of the Brahmin caste group, and he did belive in the gods, but he realized and this is what seprates Buddhism from Hinduism, he belived that the Gods couldn't help us (people) from stop suffering and he also borrowed the ideas such as Karma which is actions/deeds and the outcomes also, samsara which is rebirth and cycles of nonestop birth. You see in all the Dharma religions you belive in the wheel of none stop rebirths untill you gain enlightment and achive in the state of Narvana in Hinduism is the highest, you become nothing one with the universe and become nothing, that is being free. In Buddhism once you become a Buddha or become Arhat (Arahant) you than have stop from being reborn in the cycles, in buddhism the six realms are famous, you might want to do more reseach to gain more info. Also in the Mahayana & Vajrayana sects/schools, monks try not to become Arahant or Buddha, no instead of leaving this world, they belive in taking vows to help all other living being achive buddhahood, so they become Bodhisattva.
Bodhisattvas are being like Buddhas, except they have vowed to never to be a buddha and leave the world, untill all the living beings in this world have become buddhas. In Jainism, you try to become Jina, basically like Narviana and Arahat, to free your soul. But the Origin of the universe in Buddhism, this is one thing I too have been trying to find and never have I found anything. it is likly that they to belive in the Hindu idea of origin of the universe from the trinity gods.
thank you and
Salaamulikum
(peace be upon you)
Hmm, couple of things I want to mention about Buddhism, I noticed that Sakyaimuni aka Siddartha Buddha, was likly part of the Brahmin caste group, and he did belive in the gods, but he realized and this is what seprates Buddhism from Hinduism, he belived that the Gods couldn't help us (people) from stop suffering and he also borrowed the ideas such as Karma which is actions/deeds and the outcomes also, samsara which is rebirth and cycles of nonestop birth. You see in all the Dharma religions you belive in the wheel of none stop rebirths untill you gain enlightment and achive in the state of Narvana in Hinduism is the highest, you become nothing one with the universe and become nothing, that is being free. In Buddhism once you become a Buddha or become Arhat (Arahant) you than have stop from being reborn in the cycles, in buddhism the six realms are famous, you might want to do more reseach to gain more info. Also in the Mahayana & Vajrayana sects/schools, monks try not to become Arahant or Buddha, no instead of leaving this world, they belive in taking vows to help all other living being achive buddhahood, so they become Bodhisattva.
Bodhisattvas are being like Buddhas, except they have vowed to never to be a buddha and leave the world, untill all the living beings in this world have become buddhas. In Jainism, you try to become Jina, basically like Narviana and Arahat, to free your soul. But the Origin of the universe in Buddhism, this is one thing I too have been trying to find and never have I found anything. it is likly that they to belive in the Hindu idea of origin of the universe from the trinity gods.
thank you and
Salaamulikum
(peace be upon you)
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Miss Amy,
I have run into a great number of Buddhists over the years who say Buddhism is not a religion. (I disagree, I say it is, which puts me into the minority.) It all comes down to one thing -- what is your definition of religion?
I have run into a great number of Buddhists over the years who say Buddhism is not a religion. (I disagree, I say it is, which puts me into the minority.) It all comes down to one thing -- what is your definition of religion?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Acintita Sutta
Un-conjecturable
(In its entirety--a very short sutta)Un-conjecturable
"There are these four un-conjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddha’s (i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha) is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana (i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana)...
"The precise working out of the results of kamma...
"Conjecture about the origin, (etc.,) of the world is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four un-conjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
~~~~~~~~~"The Buddha-range of the Buddha’s (i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha) is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana (i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana)...
"The precise working out of the results of kamma...
"Conjecture about the origin, (etc.,) of the world is an un-conjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four un-conjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
It seems that conjecture about origins will "bring madness and vexation," so it should be simply considered as something unknown until we have ample evidence for it.
That "sentient field" may be what some refer to as "God." Alan Wallace, the Tibetan Buddhist practitioner, did an interesting essay related to that on whether Buddhism really is non-theistic., (his answer might surprise some-it's all in how you mean the term). Interesting essay as it addresses what we might even mean by the term "theistic," which seen from the perspective of his views, brings the East and West theoretically closer.I think it is well to remember that "Buddhism" is not one great monolithic structure and teaching that has remained constant for 2500 years.
There is a distinct division between "Theravada" and "Mahayana", though the split becomes decidedly hazy at times............
As far as Theravada is concerned, a primary text would be Udana 8:3........
There is...........a not-born, a not-bought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If.......there were not then there would be no escape from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Condensed)
Once we move into Mahayana, there is talk of the Dharmakaya, which literally means "body or system of being" and is the ultimate reality that underlies all particular phenomena. Within Mahayana this idea has developed in various ways.............with the Dharmakaya as "love" and "wisdom", as "suchness", even becoming an object of worship. This can be seen - or not! - as the "dilution" of the Dharma for the masses! (Yet a "creator God" distinct from "his" creation? No.)
For myself, I believe that it is important never to lose entirely the Theravada perspective of the "Intelligent Heart".......
Imagine you have been shot with a poisoned arrow. You are lying on the ground, getting weaker and weaker, as your life-blood drains out of you and awareness ebbs away. You have a choice. You can either examine the arrow, asking yourself who fired it, and why, from which direction it came and of what it is made - this is the response of the philosopher or the theologian to the human predicament. Or you can pull the arrow out immediately. This is the way of the Buddhist.
This is based upon the seminal Theravada scripture, the Majjhima Nikaya, sutta 63, wherein the Buddha states just what he has declared and what he has not declared, and the reasons why.
What has the Buddha not declared? That the world is eternal or not........that the world is finite, or not.........that the soul is the same as the body, or not.............that after death the "liberated one" exists, or not.
And why? Because such is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana.
And what has the Buddha declared?
That this is suffering, that this is the origin of suffering, that this is the cessation of suffering, that this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering (This referring to the Four Noble Truths)
A final word.......I would say that Buddhism more asserts that the universe IS "intelligent" rather than that it has been created by an intelligence.
earlhttp://www.alanwallace.org/Is Buddhism Really Nontheistic_.pdf
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
If the universe was created by an "intelligent being" what created that intelligent being? What created that intelligent being? And what created that one? If it was a "mindless accident" what created that? What caused the chain effect?
Vajradhara
One of Many
Namaste all,
interesting discussion so far.
there are several things to bear in mind in this discussion which, it seems, have been somewhat overlooked.
first and foremost, with regards to quoting Sutta/Sutras, we must be especially clear to whom the Sutta was given and ascertain if we are in the same relative state of spiritual understanding. Buddhas know what a being needs to hear and in the manner in which they need to hear it to help them along the path, consequently, if we are not in the same relative state of spiritual understanding the teaching may not be applicable to us.
Buddha Dharma does accept the idea of a cyclical world system where the universe expands and contracts over great periods of time called Kalpas and, consequently, no beginning can be found.
the Mahayana philosophical views regarding the aspect of Dharmakaya are somewhat different and more nuanced that what are being presented, from a previous post:
1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.
2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.
3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.
4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents.
*The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice*
as for the question if Buddhism is a religion or not.. the Buddha states that outside of the Sangha the religious life cannot be led.. however, the term isn't really apropos to any of the Dharma traditions as it is a western term with certain inherent meanings which are not always correctly applied to the various Dharma traditions. within the paradigm, itself, Buddhism is called a Dharma tradition, like Sanatana and Jain, for that matter. Dharma is an interesting word and, like many Sanskrit terms, its meaning is quite dependent upon the context in which it is used. in terms of Buddha Dharma, Sanantana Dharma and Jain Dharma the term is meant as "Truth" .. so Buddha Dharma would be something like "The Truth of the Path of Liberation" Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism, would be something like "Eternal Truth" and so forth.
then again.. what does a lable have to do with the teachings.. or.. to put it another way.. the menu isn't the food.
metta,
~v
interesting discussion so far.
there are several things to bear in mind in this discussion which, it seems, have been somewhat overlooked.
first and foremost, with regards to quoting Sutta/Sutras, we must be especially clear to whom the Sutta was given and ascertain if we are in the same relative state of spiritual understanding. Buddhas know what a being needs to hear and in the manner in which they need to hear it to help them along the path, consequently, if we are not in the same relative state of spiritual understanding the teaching may not be applicable to us.
Buddha Dharma does accept the idea of a cyclical world system where the universe expands and contracts over great periods of time called Kalpas and, consequently, no beginning can be found.
the Mahayana philosophical views regarding the aspect of Dharmakaya are somewhat different and more nuanced that what are being presented, from a previous post:
1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.
2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.
3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.
4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents.
*The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice*
as for the question if Buddhism is a religion or not.. the Buddha states that outside of the Sangha the religious life cannot be led.. however, the term isn't really apropos to any of the Dharma traditions as it is a western term with certain inherent meanings which are not always correctly applied to the various Dharma traditions. within the paradigm, itself, Buddhism is called a Dharma tradition, like Sanatana and Jain, for that matter. Dharma is an interesting word and, like many Sanskrit terms, its meaning is quite dependent upon the context in which it is used. in terms of Buddha Dharma, Sanantana Dharma and Jain Dharma the term is meant as "Truth" .. so Buddha Dharma would be something like "The Truth of the Path of Liberation" Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism, would be something like "Eternal Truth" and so forth.
then again.. what does a lable have to do with the teachings.. or.. to put it another way.. the menu isn't the food.
metta,
~v