Do Buddhists Believe in God?

How could I prove that there are Mahayana monks throughout history who’ve attained Buddhahood? I’d guess they are even more rare today.

So are you prepared to listen to an opinion different to your own, or did you simply want to say what you thought but didn’t really want others to respond?

With metta

2 Likes

Please keep in mind that, as a Pure Land Buddhist, I don’t claim to know for certain that I will, in the future, attain Buddhahood from reciting the name of Amida Buddha.

Like most Pure Land Buddhists, I practice Pure Land practices because of how prohibitively difficult it would be to attain Buddhahood otherwise, not because of logical certainty:

As for me, I simply accept and entrust myself to what my revered teacher told me, “Just say the nembutsu and be saved by Amida”; nothing else is involved.

I have no idea whether the nembutsu is truly the seed for my being born in the Pure Land or whether it is the karmic act for which I must fall into hell. Should I have been deceived by Master Honen and, saying the nembutsu, were to fall into hell, even then I would have no regrets.

The reason is, if I could attain Buddhahood by endeavoring in other practices, but said the nembutsu and so fell into hell, then I would feel regret at having been deceived. But I am incapable of any other practice, so hell is decidedly my abode whatever I do.
Tannisho: A Record in Lament of Divergences

In the above passage, Shinran explains that, if he were to fall into hell because the Nembutsu turned out to be false, he’d have no regrets, due to his incapability of attaining Buddhahood by his own efforts alone.

This hope that Pure Land Buddhism offers is one reason why it’s the largest school of Buddhism in East Asia.

People might need to take into account what Mahayana Buddhism itself teaches, which are concepts one could misconstrue as a theistic god.

According to the same Pew Research study, only 23% of American Buddhists believe in a personal god:

42% of American Buddhists instead believe in an “impersonal force.” One can describe Buddha-nature or Dharmakaya as an impersonal force, though not a theistic god.

That could well be gravity. I believe in gravity.

1 Like

A Theravada Buddhist could describe the Dharma itself as an impersonal force or cosmic principle:

Dhamma. The cosmic principle of truth, lawfulness, and virtue discovered,
fathomed, and taught by the Buddha; the Buddha’s teaching as an
expression of that principle; the teaching that leads to enlightenment and
liberation.
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon - Google Books

A Theravada Buddhist could also describe the law of karma as an impersonal force:

Kamma. Volitional action, considered particularly as a moral force capable
of producing, for the agent, results that correspond to the ethical quality of
the action; thus good kamma produces happiness, and bad kamma produces
suffering.
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon - Google Books

This is not the same as believing in a theistic god.

It turns out, if you look at the fine print of the study, a majority of American Buddhists do not believe in a personal god. They instead believe in a “universal spirit” that is an “impersonal force.”

This is why we shouldn’t take the headlines printed about a Pew study at face value.

I submit that these two words do not represent two different things but rather an infinite number of different things depending on who is using the term. Each of us have our own understandings of these terms and we tend to assume that when someone uses the term God for example that they use it in the same way we use it - but that is not the case.

Yes, according to your interpretation of the term “universal spirit” - others within your tradition might disagree with you.

Your claims about folk Buddhism may not apply when one digs into the actual data of the study.

My only point, from the beginning of this thread, has been that we should dig deeper into a survey which misleadingly gives the impression that a majority of American Buddhists believe in God:

The terms “impersonal force” and “personal god” refer to very different things.

I just happen to believe that the beliefs of American Buddhists should be described as fairly and accurately as possible, out of respect to them as Buddhists. I’m sorry for any possible miscommunication.

While certain Buddhist doctrines and practices might seem like prayer or worship of a theistic god, that’s usually how it appears on the surface level, rather than on the ultimate level of truth:

In studying and speaking the Dharma, we especially need to be aware of the conventional (or worldly or cultural) level and the ultimate (param’attha) or spiritual or Dharma) level of teaching. The conventional language is only useful and wholesome when they point, even remotely, to the true Dharma. And at the proper time, this reference should be clarified to the follower or practitioner. The point is that the spiritual should in due course transcend the worldly and cultural.
1.2 The Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta (A 2.3.5-6) records an important reminder by the Buddha on how we should approach every sutta and text, that is, we must carefully consider whether the language is conventional (based on everyday language describing causes and conditions) or ultimate (that is, Dharma language, pointing to the fact that things have no intrinsic nature or abiding essence).
Those suttas or teachings that tell stories, describe ritual acts, or that talk of “beings,” “gods,” etc, need to have their meaning drawn out (neyy’attha), as they do not directly refer to true reality. They use language and words in the form of a story or images to talk about true reality. Their meaning is indirect.
They are provisional (pariyāya) teachings, unlike say some Abhidhamma doctrines, which are said to be explicit (nippariyāyena).1
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf

While it might appear, for example, that Tibetan Buddhists pray to Avalokitesvara for worldly blessings, the deeper goal of such prayer is to cultivate Avalokitesvara’s enlightened qualities within oneself.

Conventional reality- You, I, dog, tree
Ultimate reality- aggregates, sense doors, elements

Imagination- Harry Potter, imagined Boddhas and bodhisatvas, other ‘saviours’, - note that Harry Potter made the author a lot of money so imagined things can have value!

With metta

1 Like

Can we ruled out that there is no other Buddha in other universes or dimensions ?

That’s in direct contradiction to the earliest texts.

“The body of the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, stands with the leash that bound it to existence cut. As long as his body stands, gods and men shall see him. But with the breakup of the body and the exhaustion of the life-faculty, gods and men shall see him no more.

“Just as, bhikkhus, when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes connected to the stalk follow along with it, in the same way, the body of the Tathāgata stands with the leash that bound it to existence cut. As long as his body stands, gods and men shall see him. But with the breakup of the body and the exhaustion of the life-faculty, gods and men shall see him no more.”

How do you make sense of this?

2 Likes

They exist according to EBTs, but have no interaction AFAIK.

I recall doing a meditation where a bodhisattva had to imagined (in a Tibetan tradition) and this being was nearly considered ‘real’. Blurring the lines between reality and imagination is playing with fire.

with metta

What you mean by that ?

If in vajrayana, practitioner has a solid foundation of the dharma , then that should not be a problem . Btw, It is visualization not imagined though .
There is a difference .

Here is what I understand .
In vajrayana dharma it consists of tri Kaya concept . Their ultimate goal is the attainment of the dharmakaya which is nonself nondual and formless .
But , this is not same as the sphere of arupa jhāna !
Because , being the dharmakaya Buddha as the foundation , the sambhogakaya Buddha form appear out of compassion vows and manifested a pureland realm in order to receive any being whom want to continue practice dharma there instead of practicing and taking rebirth in samsara world or in the other four realms.
( devas, animals, ghosts, hell beings )

Above thread mentioned Amida or Amitabha Buddha is one example .

Of course , you or others Theravada traditions practitioners may find it
hard to believe .

Anyway , just FYI .

Thanks .

The Buddha’s ‘voice’ doesn’t extend beyond his ‘lokha dhatu’ (sphere of influence?). Each Buddha minds his own patch of the multiverse, it would seem! (…and before you ask, I really don’t know where that sutta is!)

with metta

I suspect this is because of the “mind-only” orientation of Tibetan Buddhism, maybe? If only the mind “exists” than that which is in the mind can be thought of, from one perspective, as “all real”.

In its most advanced level visualisation-based contemplations in Tibetan Buddhism get reduced to a sort kasina contemplation, like those described in AN10.29 and MN77.

That’s why behind every tangkha for a deity, boddhisatta or a Buddha you usually find a coloured or white disk.

Of course, 99% of time and 99% of people get stuck in the coarse practice of visualising and praying for A, B or C.

1 Like

I bet you cannot support this statement with extracts from the suttas/agamas.

Buddha is just a title (like President, King, Queen, etc.) not a particular awakening state. The Buddha attained Arahat awakening stage exactly the same as other Arahats such as Sariputa, etc. The Buddha always called himself an Arahat. It is very important not to put this guy above anybody else otherwise we can’t relate to him and loose confidence that what he did we can do it too.

The mind only school thought includes all aspects of the universes, multiverses and dimensions where the base or support or ground and foundation is the Sunnata ! Where it is beyond the existence and Non existence .

Could you elaborate how do they get stuck ?