Was Buddha an atheist?

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

Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts:

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.[68]

Click to expand...

In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universe[69] and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. However, the Aggañña Sutta does contain a detailed account of the Buddha describing the origin of human life on earth. In this text, the Buddha provides an explanation of the caste system alternate to the one contained in the Vedas, and shows why one caste is not really any better than the other.

Click to expand...

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,[1][2] refused to endorse many views on creation[3] and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.[4][5]

Buddhism, instead, emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe (pratītyasamutpāda or Dependent Origination) which constitute the natural order (dhamma) and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study nature (dhamma vicaya) in order to attain personal wisdom (prajna) regarding the nature of things (dharma). In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[6][7] which is called nirvana.

Some teachers tell students beginning Buddhist meditation that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,[8] and at least one Buddhist scholar has indicated that describing Buddhism as nontheistic may be overly simplistic;[9] but many traditional theist beliefs are considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,[10] the highest goal of Buddhist practice.[11]

Click to expand...

...

As scholar Surian Yee describes, "the attitude of the Buddha as portrayed in the Nikayas is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic", although Gautama did regard the belief in a creator deity to be unhealthy.[25] However, the Samaññaphala Sutta placed materialism and amoralism together with eternalism as forms of wrong view.[25]

As Hayes describes it, "In the Nikaya literature, the question of the existence of God is treated primarily from either an epistemological point of view or a moral point of view. As a problem of epistemology, the question of God's existence amounts to a discussion of whether or not a religious seeker can be certain that there is a greatest good and that therefore his efforts to realize a greatest good will not be a pointless struggle towards an unrealistic goal. And as a problem in morality, the question amounts to a discussion of whether man himself is ultimately responsible for all the displeasure that he feels or whether there exists a superior being who inflicts displeasure upon man whether he deserves it or not... the Buddha Gotama is portrayed not as an atheist who claims to be able to prove God's nonexistence, but rather as a skeptic with respect to other teachers' claims to be able to lead their disciples to the highest good."

Click to expand...

Well technically everyone is agnostic if go with the definition that Agnostic means you don't have the information to prove or disprove a higher power.

Likely he was Hindu or protohindu

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

...

Click to expand...

You could argue that Buddha was an atheist, but that would be a bit of a problem as it only applies to one context.

What Buddha rejected was the of worship of a God in the sense of moral obligations and adherence to social control (or "religious authority") here in this life as a benefit for afterlife reward. The only sense then that Buddha can be called an atheist is the rejection of an omnipotent God who as a creator gave us a set of rules to abide by. However, in just about every other sense Buddha was not an atheist. Buddhism as a means of spiritual teachings in a higher moral law is in itself a rejection of materialistic literalism as a doctrine. At its core scientific materialism as a source for answers is incompatible with just the suggestion of a higher means of human interaction. Thus in today's sense of what atheism is, Buddha and Buddhism would hardly qualify.

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

Click to expand...

My finding is that the Buddha and his teachings are very much different then the man-made Buddhism.

Just like Jesus Christ and His teachings are very much different then the man-made Christianity.

The man-made stuff still has their place and value but they are still very different from the original.

As such the Buddha did believe in God as he was a Hindu, but I would agree that he rejected the ceremonial worship and the orthodox pretensions of religions.

JP Cusick said:

My finding is that the Buddha and his teachings are very much different then the man-made Buddhism.

Just like Jesus Christ and His teachings are very much different then the man-made Christianity.

The man-made stuff still has their place and value but they are still very different from the original.

As such the Buddha did believe in God as he was a Hindu, but I would agree that he rejected the ceremonial worship and the orthodox pretensions of religions.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Siddhartha rejected conventional Hinduism. He was born into that belief system, but his beliefs and teachings differ greatly.

Hindus believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.

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






...

Click to expand...

I am not sure what the Buddha believed when it comes to gods. That may depend on what sect of Buddhism one belongs to. I will say this, all things are impermanent, so too would be the gods. There is a sentient ladder or realms in which one could be reborn in which consists of: 1. Gods 2. Humans 3. Animals 4. Titans and demons 5. Hungry Ghosts 6. Denizens of Hell. But in all cases one can build up karma in order to move up the ladder or acquire enough bad karma to move down. But all realms are both imperfect and impermanent.

CMPancake said:

Well technically everyone is agnostic if go with the definition that Agnostic means you don't have the information to prove or disprove a higher power.

Click to expand...

A/Gnostic asks where you claim to know or admit you don't know. A/Theism asks what you believe/don't' believe.

Your (not you specifically, but anyone) claim to knowledge or lack thereof is what A/Gnosticism addresses where as A/Theism address what you believe. So we are all some combination of these 4 positions, one of each group, A/Gnostic (pick one) and A/Theist (pick one). I guess there is one more possibility and that is that you've never given "god/s" a thought and you don't care.

Amadeus said:

My understanding is that Siddhartha rejected conventional Hinduism. He was born into that belief system, but his beliefs and teachings differ greatly.

Hindus believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Buddha rejected Hinduism but that does not include rejecting God or the Higher Power by whatever name.

It could be said that the Buddha created a reformed type of Hinduism, or at least a break-off religion from Hinduism.

I do believe that you are correct that the vast majority of Hindus consider the Buddha as one of their own.

I like to let Alan Watts explain these issues. Remember that Mr. Watts said to not take anything he says seriously.

Dibbler said:

I like to let Alan Watts explain these issues. Remember that Mr. Watts said to not take anything he says seriously.

Click to expand...

I like what Maya Angelou said = "When someone shows you who they are - believe them;"

So if Mr Watts tells you (tells us all) to NOT take him seriously - then DO NOT take him seriously.

A person tells it to you - then believe it.

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






...

Click to expand...

Bhuddism believes in gods only in so far as there are higher levels of existence and some people/beings have attained them.

JP Cusick said:

I like what Maya Angelou said = "When someone shows you who they are - believe them;"

So if Mr Watts tells you (tells us all) to NOT take him seriously - then DO NOT take him seriously.

A person tells it to you - then believe it.

Click to expand...

To me, a person's actions are much more telling than his words. Many people don't even understand themselves, and couldn't project an accurate assessment of themselves to begin with. As for Mr Watts- I've never seen anything that leads me to believe he isn't spot-on, and if he said not to take him seriously, I'm inclined to believe that it's because he believes (as I do), that the individual must find his own way, and not depend on someone else to lead them to the truth.

JP Cusick said:

I like what Maya Angelou said = "When someone shows you who they are - believe them;"

So if Mr Watts tells you (tells us all) to NOT take him seriously - then DO NOT take him seriously.

A person tells it to you - then believe it.

Click to expand...

And that's what keeps it fun !

lizzie said:

To me, a person's actions are much more telling than his words. Many people don't even understand themselves, and couldn't project an accurate assessment of themselves to begin with.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

And that is a sad reality.

lizzie said:

As for Mr Watts- I've never seen anything that leads me to believe he isn't spot-on,

Click to expand...

Since you endorsed it then I gave the video a viewing.

What I see is that Watts is giving a sensible view of Buddhism and I see that as futile.

I love the teachings of the Buddha so do not get me wrong here.

The problem with Buddhism is that it is not a very accurate reflection for the Buddha - IMO.
The same with Christianity and Christian churches are NOT an accurate reflection of Jesus Christ.

lizzie said:

... and if he said not to take him seriously, I'm inclined to believe that it's because he believes (as I do), that the individual must find his own way, and not depend on someone else to lead them to the truth.

Click to expand...

I agree with this too.

lizzie said:

To me, a person's actions are much more telling than his words. Many people don't even understand themselves, and couldn't project an accurate assessment of themselves to begin with. As for Mr Watts- I've never seen anything that leads me to believe he isn't spot-on, and if he said not to take him seriously, I'm inclined to believe that it's because he believes (as I do), that the individual must find his own way, and not depend on someone else to lead them to the truth.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I think if the Buddha were around today to answer the question his answer would be in essence what Mr. Watts said. I believe he would say something such as, "It doesn't matter. This is not about me. I could be wrong, I could have been misquoted, I could be lying. Do not depend on me. You already have the answers to your own questions. Be quiet and listen to yourself and then you'll know."

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






...

Click to expand...

Thanks for starting the thread.

Historically the Buddha was a Hindu. I would suppose he tried to believe as he was taught and as so many other people believed. Did he believe in gods at that point? Probably. Of course we also know that whatever he was taught and whatever he tried to believe did not work for him. At that point in his life we could argue that he may have been an agnostic. After his enlightenment he certainly wasn't a traditional Hindu. Did he continue to believe in a god or gods? I don't know. But he did believe that the power to end one's suffering and re-incarnation rested ultimately within each person.

recall the 4 Nobel Truths ,and the 8 Fold Nobel path...nothing in there about gods..as to the Wheel of Death, etc. ( the various incarnations) -
it's not all that important -I'm sure that wasn't a teaching by Buddha, but later added dharma.

The point though is oinly a human incarnation gives one the opportunity to cease the cyclical re-births, and get off the Wheel -to perfected enlightenment. ( only humans can self perfect)
That is nirvanahh - then end to suffering, as the human condition -which Buddha saw when he first left the palace is to suffer.

I like this version of the 4 Nobel Truths - there are many more then this sutta

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming.

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

If you want greater understanding of the teachings, it's worthy to read the about the life of Buddha -Deepak Chopra's is a fine read -very interesting,
I couldn't put it down!
Buddha: A Story of Enlightenment: Deepak Chopra: 9781441826572: Amazon.com: Books

PS. I misspelled my screen name "annata" should be anatta ( no self ). I was going to ask it be corrected, but since everything is impermanent...:mrgreen:

Very interesting subject -will check back -as to the OP "it doesn't matter" what we call the Buddha's beliefs, his teachings are
what matters,

PPS bodhisattva are enlightened who chose to delay enlightenment by compassion to help others still alive

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

Click to expand...

:attn1: See below:

Jerry said:

Bhuddism believes in gods only in so far as there are higher levels of existence and some people/beings have attained them.

Click to expand...

:attn1: See farther below:

Risky Thicket said:

Historically the Buddha was a Hindu. I would suppose he tried to believe as he was taught and as so many other people believed. Did he believe in gods at that point? Probably. Of course we also know that whatever he was taught and whatever he tried to believe did not work for him. At that point in his life we could argue that he may have been an agnostic. After his enlightenment he certainly wasn't a traditional Hindu. Did he continue to believe in a god or gods? I don't know. But he did believe that the power to end one's suffering and re-incarnation rested ultimately within each person.

Click to expand...

The thing is that there is a real God whether the Buddha knew about God or if he did not know.

Since I view the Buddha as a real enlightened person then he had to know about God because otherwise he could hardly have been enlightened.

Plus since there are "enlightened beings" and spirits and Ghosts and Demons and such which are also real then they will always be seen as lesser Gods and demigods so there are many Gods whether the Buddha knew it or not.

Just FYI.

JP Cusick said:

The thing is that there is a real God .

Click to expand...

In your opinion.

JP Cusick said:

Plus since there are "enlightened beings" and spirits and Ghosts and Demons and such which are also real

Click to expand...

There is no proof that these are real. Fictional would be nearer the mark.

JP Cusick said:

:attn1: See below:

:attn1: See farther below:

The thing is that there is a real God whether the Buddha knew about God or if he did not know.

Since I view the Buddha as a real enlightened person then he had to know about God because otherwise he could hardly have been enlightened.

Plus since there are "enlightened beings" and spirits and Ghosts and Demons and such which are also real then they will always be seen as lesser Gods and demigods so there are many Gods whether the Buddha knew it or not.

Just FYI.

Click to expand...

it's like trying to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -no?

Buddha didn't really address the matter, his was enlightenment thru meditation under the Bodhi tree -
but only his life brought him to that point, having tried asceticism ( and a few more I can't recall) ways to end suffering.

read the 8 fold path, Buddhism doesn't rely on gods/God - it's just not germane to the practice
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html

No... Buddha was not an atheist. He wasn't a theist either, because both were irrelevant to what he was about.

Buddha's task was with ending human suffering. He did this through the Eight Fold Noble Path, and practicing Emptiness and compassion for all living sentient beings.

He made no claims about what happened before we were born, or after. That was added later, long after he died, keeping in mind that the first writings about the Buddha were not made in the Pali Cannon until about 200 years after the fact. Until then, it was an oral tradition.

There are different branches of Buddhism now which have deities and what not, such as the Tibetan sects... but that's because the Buddhist teachings intermingled with their local deity system to form a synergy. Buddhism as it was first practiced in India had no deities whatsoever.

Buddha was about the here and now. He didn't speculate beyond Present Awareness because to do so requires mind, and mind is the very thing Buddhism tries to rectify.

Buddhism is basically an advanced, ancient form of psychology, with some spiritual aspects.

CMPancake said:

Well technically everyone is agnostic if go with the definition that Agnostic means you don't have the information to prove or disprove a higher power.

Click to expand...

no ,believers cant be defined as atheist .it is a silly argument

annata said:

Buddha didn't really address the matter, his was enlightenment thru meditation under the Bodhi tree -
but only his life brought him to that point, having tried asceticism ( and a few more I can't recall) ways to end suffering.

read the 8 fold path, Buddhism doesn't rely on gods/God - it's just not germane to the practice
The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering

Click to expand...

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.


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

Northern Light said:

No... Buddha was not an atheist. He wasn't a theist either, because both were irrelevant to what he was about.

Click to expand...

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.

Northern Light said:

Buddha's task was with ending human suffering. He did this through the Eight Fold Noble Path, and practicing Emptiness and compassion for all living sentient beings.

Click to expand...

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."

Northern Light said:

He made no claims about what happened before we were born, or after. That was added later, long after he died, keeping in mind that the first writings about the Buddha were not made in the Pali Cannon until about 200 years after the fact. Until then, it was an oral tradition.

Click to expand...

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.

Northern Light said:

There are different branches of Buddhism now which have deities and what not, such as the Tibetan sects... but that's because the Buddhist teachings intermingled with their local deity system to form a synergy. Buddhism as it was first practiced in India had no deities whatsoever.

Click to expand...

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.

Northern Light said:

Buddha was about the here and now.

Buddhism is basically an advanced, ancient form of psychology, with some spiritual aspects.

Click to expand...

I like this interpretation.

eace