Was Buddha an atheist?

anatta · Dec 10, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.

The other 3 truths along with the 8 fold path are ways of dealing with suffering but NOT to end the suffering.

A great example of that ideal is Jesus Christ on the cross where Jesus was in a horrific case of massive suffering and yet Jesus kept His mind and soul at peace.

To have peace of mind to think clearly while in the throws of pain and sorrow or suffering is the true message.

One can claim that death ends the suffering or that death then Nirvana would be no more suffering, but those are not taught by the Buddha or the 4 Noble Truths.

suggest you read the link I gave you that explains that the end of ALL suffering -can only come by end of cessation of cyclical re-birth.
Not "death" -but enlightenment. I do respect your ideas..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

as to the OP -I had forgotten the Kalama Sutta addresses this : Buddha's words here speak for themselves

Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

read the entire sutta, and see how he lays out that superior ideas/practice have intrinsic worth on earth, and perhaps more...
either way they retain superiority over the Vedas

dhamma ( Path) is referred to in the sutta Dhamma

Northern Light · Dec 10, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.

The other 3 truths along with the 8 fold path are ways of dealing with suffering but NOT to end the suffering.

A great example of that ideal is Jesus Christ on the cross where Jesus was in a horrific case of massive suffering and yet Jesus kept His mind and soul at peace.

To have peace of mind to think clearly while in the throws of pain and sorrow or suffering is the true message.

One can claim that death ends the suffering or that death then Nirvana would be no more suffering, but those are not taught by the Buddha or the 4 Noble Truths.

=====================================

I can agree that a God was not included but that was NOT because God is irrelevant but because God was an accepted fact which did not need to be said.

The teachings of the Buddha can still be embraced by those who do not believe in God and that is a mark of greatness, but God is real and included no matter if some person believes it or not.

The real existence of God is NOT a matter of belief or not belief.

No - it was not to end suffering - it was to endure and to tolerate the suffering in our self.

The Buddha was extremely realistic which is why the TRUTHs are absolute.

The 3rd Truth has been confused by claiming it was an end to the suffering when it is really just saying an end to clinging to the suffering, as in stopping the suffering from controlling us, and the 3rd Truth is based on the same message given in the Hindu scripture called the Bhagavad-Gita.

Chapter 7
"Of many thousand mortals, one, perchance, Striveth for Truth; and of those few that strive Nay, and rise high - one only - here and there Knoweth Me, as I am, the very Truth."

I see no reason to connect the popular teachings about God as being required when talking about God.

Regardless of whatever happened before we were born or created and whatever happens after death really have nothing to do with the real existence of God.

Religions teach a bunch of garbage claiming to be about God, so knowing about the real God does not mean that we must carry all of the religious garbage too.

It is absurd to say that anyone including the Buddha could be in India and then to have nothing to do with a Deity or any of the Gods as that would be impossible.

The coolest thing about Buddhism is that it is compatible with all religions and philosophies as the Buddha taught such basic human truths that they fit anywhere.

It is easy to be Christian or Atheist and accept the truths of the Buddha, and truly the Buddha teachings are not contrary to anyone.

Of course there are lots of people who are contrary to the Buddha but not the other way around.

I like this interpretation.

eace

Buddhism was absolutely not about tolerating our internal suffering, it was about ending suffering. That was Gutama's primary inquiry and it was what led him on his quest.

The Buddha absolutely did not pander to theism, negatively or positively. Naturally he was immersed in a world ruled by Hinduism which was very god(s) oriented, but his concern was with the nature of suffering and mind ONLY.

I'm sorry - and I don't mean this as an insult - but your level of ignorance is too high to really have a proper conversation about this. You are trying to argue about the bare basics of what Buddhism is, which you don't seem to know that clearly.

Here is a really excellent documentary that's fun to watch that can help you understand things a bit more clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWPFYygGPc&index=1&list=FLKmzCQibjrQl_u9DaTGSb4A

If you'd like some advanced primers we can talk after.

Enjoy!

JP Cusick · Dec 10, 2014

Northern Light said:
Buddhism was absolutely not about tolerating our internal suffering, it was about ending suffering. That was Gutama's primary inquiry and it was what led him on his quest.

I see that I failed to make that clear enough.

What I meant to be saying is that we are to tolerate the external suffering by remaining calm and peaceful inside our self.

So you are correct that we do not tolerate the internal suffering, but we are to endure and to tolerate the external suffering.

The only "end of suffering" is to end the suffering in our minds and heart and soul, but not the suffering which is true to life and to living as told in the 1st Noble Truth because that can not be ended.

If the suffering could end then suffering would not be the 1st noble truth.

Northern Light said:
The Buddha absolutely did not pander to theism, negatively or positively. Naturally he was immersed in a world ruled by Hinduism which was very god(s) oriented, but his concern was with the nature of suffering and mind ONLY.

That is correct, but the Buddha never ever denounced Theism or God by any name or synonym.

He did not promote any God but he did not reject any either, and there were plenty of Gods all around.

Northern Light said:
I'm sorry - and I don't mean this as an insult - but your level of ignorance is too high to really have a proper conversation about this. You are trying to argue about the bare basics of what Buddhism is, which you don't seem to know that clearly.

I shall never understand such pompous and pretentious egotism as that, and it does trouble me.

There is no ability for me to speak up to you, so you get to choose to endure and tolerate my ignorance - or not.

This was the point of the Noble Truths in that we can not stop the external pain and sorrows thrown at us, but we can stop from internalizing that.

Northern Light said:
Here is a really excellent documentary that's fun to watch that can help you understand things a bit more clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWPFYygGPc&index=1&list=FLKmzCQibjrQl_u9DaTGSb4A

I have seen that film on TV before and it is okay and it is a well made film, but I want to dig much deeper then that.

The books about the Buddha are all the same way as telling the history and the fundamentals and I do not see how that could convert anyone or how it could help to enlighten anyone, because shallow and superficial are just not helpful to anyone.

Jerry · Dec 10, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.

Suffering still exists after you escape it just like Earth's gravity still exists after a Mars probe escapes it. Ever go inside to get out of the rain? Did rain sease to exist on the plannet after you got out of the rain? No. Same thing.

JP Cusick · Dec 11, 2014

Jerry said:
Suffering still exists after you escape it just like Earth's gravity still exists after a Mars probe escapes it. Ever go inside to get out of the rain? Did rain sease to exist on the plannet after you got out of the rain? No. Same thing.

That is very clever what you say here, and yes Buddhism will say that too - but the Buddha did not say any such thing as that.

Just like Christianity fails in explaining Jesus Christ, so too Buddhism fails in explaining the Buddha.

A lot of people (not just Buddhist) go out into the mountains or they live in caves or get away from human population in order to find the Nirvana or peace or whatever one might call it, and by separating one self from the suffering is thereby separating from life, as anyone can find peace while alone in a desert.

To leave the suffering (as like leaving the earth's gravity) is to leave life and leaving the truth and that is vain and futile.

The only true strength of the Noble Truths is by staying in the suffering and being separate from the suffering at the same time.

The perfect example of that is Jesus on the cross, as Jesus suffers horribly yet He still thought about providing for His mother and forgiving the guards while He was being crucified because His mind and heart and soul were held separate from the outer suffering.

Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.

Jerry · Dec 12, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That is very clever what you say here, and yes Buddhism will say that too - but the Buddha did not say any such thing as that.

If you say so. My practice is little concerned with Bhudda quotes, and practitioners aren't encouraged to accept anything Buddha or anyone else says simply because they said it anyway.

The way I explained it, is just the truth. Suffering per-se continues to exist even if an indivigual escapes it. Also, if the wheel of karma is accurate, an enlightened being can always fall back into suffering; a god can fall back to the lowest forms of being.

JP Cusick said:
Just like Christianity fails in explaining Jesus Christ, so too Buddhism fails in explaining the Buddha.

Please see Bhudda by Karen Armstrong if you're looking for a biography of Sedarta Gautama.

JP Cusick said:
A lot of people (not just Buddhist) go out into the mountains or they live in caves or get away from human population in order to find the Nirvana or peace or whatever one might call it, and by separating one self from the suffering is thereby separating from life, as anyone can find peace while alone in a desert.

Good for them. Most Buddhists are not monks, however, but reguler people.

JP Cusick said:
To leave the suffering (as like leaving the earth's gravity) is to leave life and leaving the truth and that is vain and futile.

In many ways, yes.

JP Cusick said:
The only true strength of the Noble Truths is by staying in the suffering and being separate from the suffering at the same time.

Nonsense. The only way to be helthy is to keep smashing your hand with a hammer? Pure nonsense.

JP Cusick said:
The perfect example of that is Jesus on the cross, as Jesus suffers horribly yet He still thought about providing for His mother and forgiving the guards while He was being crucified because His mind and heart and soul were held separate from the outer suffering.

That's actualy not the same thing at all.

JP Cusick said:
Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.

"Otherwise"....what?

JP Cusick · Dec 12, 2014

Jerry said:
Suffering per-se continues to exist even if an indivigual escapes it.

There is just no way to escape or to separate from the suffering of this life other then AFTER death, and after death is just as meaningless to this lifetime as is going to Heaven after one dies.

The idea is to detach our inner self from the ongoing suffering.

You keep saying it in very vague terms as if you can escape suffering in this life and that can not be done.

The Buddha does explain how anyone can be happy for a while, but like a little bird it flies away soon enough.

Jerry said:
Please see Bhudda by Karen Armstrong if you're looking for a biography of Sedarta Gautama.

I have read very reliable accounts of the Buddha and his life and I see it as great and fantastic and I got that.

Thereafter the quest is to dig into the truths more deeply, and not to just dig into the past history.

Jerry said:
"Otherwise"....what?

Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.

If the only way of reaching nirvana is by pretending to escape suffering or to wait until after one dies then it would be worthless.

Jerry · Dec 13, 2014

JP Cusick said:
There is just no way to escape or to separate from the suffering of this life other then AFTER death, and after death is just as meaningless to this lifetime as is going to Heaven after one dies.

The idea is to detach our inner self from the ongoing suffering.

You keep saying it in very vague terms as if you can escape suffering in this life and that can not be done.

The Buddha does explain how anyone can be happy for a while, but like a little bird it flies away soon enough.

Whatever happens after we die is of little interest to me.

JP Cusick said:
I have read very reliable accounts of the Buddha and his life and I see it as great and fantastic and I got that.

Thereafter the quest is to dig into the truths more deeply, and not to just dig into the past history.

Then you have your 'explanation of Buddha' and there was no point of saying Buddhism doesn't explain Buddha.

JP Cusick said:
Otherwise the Noble Truths would be offering nothing to people living here and now.

"Otherwise" means 'in circumstances different from those present or considered', but we haven't been considering any circumstances at all for an "otherwise" to apply. You had mentioned Jesus's crucifixion, is that the initial circumstances your 'otherwise' is contrasting against? Christianity has nothing to do with this thread.

JP Cusick said:
If the only way of reaching nirvana is by pretending to escape suffering or to wait until after one dies then it would be worthless.

I'm happy with a reduction of suffering. Aim high, miss high. Reach for a larger goal and a failure will still be greater than if you had achieved a smaller goal. If I have to reach for pure nirvana in order to improve my life the most possible, then to pure nirvana I will reach even if I know I will never attain it.

Jerry · Dec 13, 2014

I can't recall an instance where Buddha worshiped any god, and worshiping any god is definitely not a part of Buddhism, so I think it's safe to say Buddha was not a theist.

I'm not sure if we have a term for someone who thinks gods exist but just isn't worried about it either way.

Manny · Dec 13, 2014

Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

OrphanSlug · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

Not really, what Buddhism preaches (teaches) does not match your conclusion.

RabidAlpaca · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

Then you are extremely ignorant about what Buddhists actually believe and you refuse to inform yourself about it before you make statements about it.

Perotista · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

No, not even. Buddha was just a man who found enlightenment. He then passed on how others can attain enlightenment through his teachings. He is revered as a great teacher. Not a god. Even in the chant to honor the Buddha which goes "Namo ta sat, pak arahato, arahato samma sam bud tasat" which translates into "Homage to the Blessed One, the worth One, the rightly self-awakened One."

Now that is the English translation from Pali, a dead language spoken and written in India very log ago. Now if one has learned a second language one will know there are some words in any other language that can not be translated accurately into a different language. That the exact meaning is impossible to pass along.

There is a big difference in honoring and paying respects to "The Teacher" than worshiping a god.

Jerry · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

Then I can't identify what you've been seeing of Buddhists.

Manny · Dec 13, 2014

Jerry said:
Then I can't identify what you've been seeing of Buddhists.

Yeah I've read some literature, I get the theory. I'm not talking about armchair Buddhists. I've seen documentaries on TV about places like Indonesia, Burma etc. where they have these huge shrines to Buddha. And the people are prostrating themselves before it.

Looks like a god to me....

Jerry · Dec 13, 2014

Manny said:
Yeah I've read some literature, I get the theory. I'm not talking about armchair Buddhists. I've seen documentaries on TV about places like Indonesia, Burma etc. where they have these huge shrines to Buddha. And the people are prostrating themselves before it.

Looks like a god to me....

The Buddha statue serves as a mirror because each individual is a Buddha. To prey before the statue is to perform a kind of guided self-talk. The many gods surrounding the culture represent aspects on the self when they don't represent personified natural forces, and so to invoke a god is to invoke a Jungian archetype of the human psyche.

It's all about introspection, not god worship.

JP Cusick · Dec 13, 2014

Jerry said:
I'm happy with a reduction of suffering. Aim high, miss high.

That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.

To reduce suffering is the animal instinct to run away and hide from it.

It is being defensive while the Buddha is saying to take the offensive.

Suffering is the reality (the Truth) and we must embrace suffering and walk into it and confront it, but THEN at the same time we are not to internalize the suffering.

Jerry said:
Reach for a larger goal and a failure will still be greater than if you had achieved a smaller goal. If I have to reach for pure nirvana in order to improve my life the most possible, then to pure nirvana I will reach even if I know I will never attain it.

You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.

The Buddha gives us realistic principles which any person can fulfill and it was never meant to be unreachable.

The Buddha was telling just the beginning as once we overcome the suffering then we get to walk through life to find our destiny.

The Nirvana was not intended as the end, as it is to give the person the power to proceed.

===============================================

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.

The Buddha did not teach himself as God but the people of Buddhism did that.

The problem came when Buddhism tries to exclude God from the teaching of the Buddha and thereby the Buddhism was starving the people from their spiritual need for the real God.

All human beings have an instinctive knowledge of the real God and Buddhism under Atheist ideals have made a mistake by trying to stifle that human need for God.

As such the simple Buddhist people had no other view of God so they view the Buddha as God because Buddhism has left their people barren and starving and malnourished without their connection to the Father God.

They make a mistake by viewing the Buddha as God but that mistake is natural and logical based on the misguidance from the Atheist ideals.

Jerry · Dec 13, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.

To reduce suffering is the animal instinct to run away and hide from it.

It is being defensive while the Buddha is saying to take the offensive.

Suffering is the reality (the Truth) and we must embrace suffering and walk into it and confront it, but THEN at the same time we are not to internalize the suffering.

You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.

The Buddha gives us realistic principles which any person can fulfill and it was never meant to be unreachable.

The Buddha was telling just the beginning as once we overcome the suffering then we get to walk through life to find our destiny.

The Nirvana was not intended as the end, as it is to give the person the power to proceed..

The quality of your post falls far short of the quality of Buddhism. Believe your delusions as you will, but know that your words aren't changing minds. I've simply experienced to much improvement from practicing Buddhism for any person's online argument to draw me from it. Know that I am not a victory you can achieve.

Back to the topic: Buddhism is a religion about self development, not god worship. A Buddhist isn't required to, or banned from, any opinion of any god. Believe or disbelieve as you will, Buddhism accepts all views of gods yet is concerned with no god.

Northern Light · Dec 13, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I really see it as super-wrong to claim that the Buddha taught how to end suffering because that would nullify the 1st Noble Truth which the Buddha never did.

No - it was not to end suffering - it was to endure and to tolerate the suffering in our self.

First, don't compare Buddhism to Christianity. Their concepts about suffering are completely different.

Second, your interpretation of the First Noble Truth is not correct. It's about Right View through the Wisdom school of the path, meaning that yes, all beings suffer, but they suffer because of attachment, and not because reality is inherently about suffering. Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Suffering is a state of consciousness, not circumstance. Therefore, how can we modify one's view to nullify attachment and therefore suffering -- enter the other seven Truths, but it all starts with Right View of what suffering is.

It's not about "tolerating" suffering, or letting it continue for some higher purpose. Suffering yields wisdom but the Buddha never said we should seek out suffering, or merely seek to tolerate it. He was about dissolving mind and therefore suffering.

Please do more reading into this subject. I don't know who your teacher has been but you may need to switch it up.

Manny · Dec 13, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.

The Buddha did not teach himself as God but the people of Buddhism did that.

The problem came when Buddhism tries to exclude God from the teaching of the Buddha and thereby the Buddhism was starving the people from their spiritual need for the real God.

All human beings have an instinctive knowledge of the real God and Buddhism under Atheist ideals have made a mistake by trying to stifle that human need for God.

As such the simple Buddhist people had no other view of God so they view the Buddha as God because Buddhism has left their people barren and starving and malnourished without their connection to the Father God.

They make a mistake by viewing the Buddha as God but that mistake is natural and logical based on the misguidance from the Atheist ideals.

What can I say... you have captured the essence of the point I was trying to make. Very eloquently put!

RabidAlpaca · Dec 13, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That is aiming low - it is not aiming high.

To reduce suffering is the animal instinct to run away and hide from it.

It is being defensive while the Buddha is saying to take the offensive.

Suffering is the reality (the Truth) and we must embrace suffering and walk into it and confront it, but THEN at the same time we are not to internalize the suffering.

You can never attain Nirvana in that way because you are doing it backward as if you will take it by force.

The Buddha gives us realistic principles which any person can fulfill and it was never meant to be unreachable.

The Buddha was telling just the beginning as once we overcome the suffering then we get to walk through life to find our destiny.

The Nirvana was not intended as the end, as it is to give the person the power to proceed.

===============================================

That is correct that many Buddhist view the Buddha as the God.

The Buddha did not teach himself as God but the people of Buddhism did that.

The problem came when Buddhism tries to exclude God from the teaching of the Buddha and thereby the Buddhism was starving the people from their spiritual need for the real God.

All human beings have an instinctive knowledge of the real God and Buddhism under Atheist ideals have made a mistake by trying to stifle that human need for God.

As such the simple Buddhist people had no other view of God so they view the Buddha as God because Buddhism has left their people barren and starving and malnourished without their connection to the Father God.

They make a mistake by viewing the Buddha as God but that mistake is natural and logical based on the misguidance from the Atheist ideals.

Just because you're too weak to function without a god doesn't mean everyone is. Buddhism does not have a god and you are extremely ignorant.

JP Cusick · Dec 13, 2014

Northern Light said:
First, don't compare Buddhism to Christianity. Their concepts about suffering are completely different.

That is missing the point again, but I am happy to repeat the point.

Buddhism is different from the Buddha just as Christianity is different from Jesus Christ.

So yes Buddhism and Christianity are both wrong where it comes to suffering, but Jesus Christ and the Buddha are not wrong.

I myself believe that Jesus simply had to have known about the other religions of the world and Buddhism was already near 500 years old by the 1st century CE and lots of the teachings of Jesus are compatible with the Buddha, especially including the suffering of the cross.

One big problem with Atheist is that they are really anti-God instead of just no-God as they claim.

Northern Light said:
Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Suffering is a state of consciousness, not circumstance.

That is the problem of trying to minimize pain and suffering because it gives the false impression that you have escaped when you have not.

When we feel real pain as in someone striking or stabbing or cutting you then we suffer like hell and suffering is not optional. And such harsh pain hurts even in the conscious mind.

The teaching of the Buddha is that we have to have the pain and sorrow and suffering but at the same time we are not to let it control us.

Northern Light said:
I don't know who your teacher has been but you may need to switch it up.

I have learned from other people of course, but I do not follow any teacher or superior as my knowledge is my own and only my own.

This is an important position for my self and for my faith - that I am my own teacher as I do my own research and I make my own decisions.

Northern Light · Dec 14, 2014

JP Cusick said:
That is missing the point again, but I am happy to repeat the point.

Buddhism is different from the Buddha just as Christianity is different from Jesus Christ.

So yes Buddhism and Christianity are both wrong where it comes to suffering, but Jesus Christ and the Buddha are not wrong.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, as it is rather vague.

JP Cusick said:
One big problem with Atheist is that they are really anti-God instead of just no-God as they claim.

That may or may not be true, but in any case it has nothing to do with Buddhism. The only mention of gods or anything in Buddhism is in the Tibetan sects, and they describe Godhood as completely undesireable. Gods live extremely long lives in luxury, but because they never know suffering their consciousness never approaches Buddhahood. As they expend all their good karma, their bodies begin to rot and the other Gods outcast them, until finally they die and are reborn into a lesser life.

There's nothing in Buddhism that acknowledges One-True-God or any necessity to please it.

JP Cusick said:
That is the problem of trying to minimize pain and suffering because it gives the false impression that you have escaped when you have not.

Incorrect. It's not about escapism, but Emptiness. There is no self to be found in anything. Everything arises and ceases on its own, without input from a self. Yet everything is connected because nothing exists independently of anything else. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional. There's nothing to escape from, nowhere to go. There's no here or there, higher or lower. There's no spiritual ladder. Right now is as good as it gets, in Present Awareness.

If you're still operating at the "escapism" level of spirituality from within Buddhism, then you are caught in attachment and further illusion. In other words: mind. When mind ceases, it becomes abundantly clear that there's nothing to really try and escape from in the first place.

JP Cusick said:
When we feel real pain as in someone striking or stabbing or cutting you then we suffer like hell and suffering is not optional. And such harsh pain hurts even in the conscious mind.

Incorrect. We can experience pain but mind interprets the meaning. It's the difference between a friend punching you in the arm as a joke and someone punching you because they're trying to kill you. Your mind assigns different meaning to different pain. Some is acceptable and some isn't. Whether or not you suffer is a product of your mind. Under anesthesia there's no mind to experience the pain so suffering doesn't happen.

If you're experiencing suffering then it's because your mind is arguing with the existence of the pain, i.e. "I should not be in pain, why is this happening?", instead of seeing it as an event that arises independently and eventually ceases. Suffering is an object of mind.

JP Cusick said:
The teaching of the Buddha is that we have to have the pain and sorrow and suffering but at the same time we are not to let it control us.

Again, you're conflating pain and suffering. They are not the same thing. One is a fact of life and one is a product of mind. All suffering comes from attachment. Say it with me now: all suffering is because of attachment.

Nor is it about control. Control is attachment.

JP Cusick said:
I have learned from other people of course, but I do not follow any teacher or superior as my knowledge is my own and only my own.

Yes, that much is obvious.

JP Cusick said:
This is an important position for my self and for my faith - that I am my own teacher as I do my own research and I make my own decisions.

Yes, in the modern world people are so staunchly individualistic that they take pieces from here and there to make a patchwork spirituality, and that's fine. My problem is that you're spreading false ideas about Buddhism, which is based in lineage traditions that have very clear definitions. If we were talking about advanced work then there would be a lot more room for discussion, but your foundational knowledge is misunderstood. I think you could really benefit from a lineage teacher at least for you formative stages, and then venture out on your own to formulate your own system.

You probably also need to research less and meditate more.

Northern Light · Dec 14, 2014

Jerry said:
The Buddha statue serves as a mirror because each individual is a Buddha. To prey before the statue is to perform a kind of guided self-talk. The many gods surrounding the culture represent aspects on the self when they don't represent personified natural forces, and so to invoke a god is to invoke a Jungian archetype of the human psyche.

It's all about introspection, not god worship.

Well, Manny actually has a point. In many countries Buddha has become a little bit deified... to such an extent that if you do things to "insult the Buddha" while at a shrine, you could get thrown in jail or have a mob come after you. A lot of people have externalized Buddha, which is exactly what he said not to do. There's a very good quote... if you see Buddha on the path you should kill him. He's not supposed to be outside of you.

But in principle, you're correct. The same is true of the other Bodhisattvas in the Tibetan tradition. Each one is supposed to be an aspect of the Buddha that we work with to understand better within ourselves; but armchair theologians in the western world look at it and call Buddhists theists. It's really ignorant.

JP Cusick · Dec 14, 2014

Amadeus said:
I'm finding bits and pieces of information which lead me to believe that if Buddha wasn't an atheist, he was at the very least agnostic. He did accept that there were enlightened beings, but did not necessarily view them as gods, but rather a class superhumans who had attained a higher state of existence -- all of whom are in the same cycle of death/rebirth as everyone.

From Wikipedia:

God in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:attn1: See below:

Manny said:
Seems to me from what I've seen among Buddhists, Buddha IS the god.

My understanding is that the Buddha lived in India which is so full of Gods that it is not reasonable to expect that the Buddha would not just accept God or Gods as a fact of reality which was so commonplace and he accepted that it was not needed to be said about God.

In India (even back in his days 6th century BCE) there was total belief in God and if the Buddha ever thought otherwise then he would have had to say that there was no God to everyone around and there is no record of that.

In fact I would declare that the Buddha probably never ever even considered the ridiculous concept of Atheism (that God is not real) because that would have been absurd, and in those times there was no such thing as an Atheist because that idea would have been preposterous and shocking and it would have been seen as stupid.

If there had been any Atheist in those times then that person would have been seen as the village idiot.

Being an Atheist is really a very modern dilution going back maybe 150 years as a very small beginning, so to try to view the Buddha as an Atheist is just not credible.

The problem today is that Atheist and Atheism is so very dry and void that the Atheist are starving for relief and the teaching of the Buddha give the Atheist a point of relief to their tired out and empty mentality, and I see that as okay because the Buddha teachings are a blessing to anyone that embraces it.

Was Buddha an atheist?

The Light of Truth

The Expert

The Expert

The Expert

Nay Sayer

A sinister place...

Engineer

Nay Sayer

The Expert

The Light of Truth

Nay Sayer

Engineer

The Expert

The Light of Truth

The Light of Truth

The Expert