Does God(s) Exist and Does it Matter?

Discussion
61

That’s exactly what I tried to convey above. Gods are not the same as bacteria or gravity. Einstein predicted because of his understanding of gravity that light would bend at a solar eclipse in a very specific way, and of course he was right. Different scientists could observe it, make the same calculations, come to the same conclusions. - Where is here the equivalence with gods? There is none.

What I find worrisome is what I perceive as an attempt to save Buddhism, by saving the heavens, by saving the gods. Does really the whole building of Buddhism depend on rebirth, heavens, and thus gods? Are we still not mature enough to separate the spiritual aspects that seem valuable to us from historically collateral concepts which demand an intellectual declaration of bankruptcy?

I can imagine that a monastic position is more dependent on a crack-less conceptual structure of historical Buddhism (just like catholic priests in the 20th c. were prohibited to teach that the NT is to be understood symbolically). But why should lay Buddhists engage in mental acrobatics in order to ‘save’ all aspects of sutta Buddhism?

2 Likes
62

The Dhamma doesn’t collapse if there is no rebirth, but it would change it. It would be diminished.

But why should lay Buddhists engage in mental acrobatics in order to ‘save’ all aspects of sutta Buddhism?

Save? I had no idea rebirth and devas had been so thoroughly discredited. True, most westerners have a problem with the ideas because of holding onto scepticism or materialism but that isn’t a weakness of the Dhamma nor does it disprove anything.

Are we still not mature enough to separate the spiritual aspects that seem valuable to us from historically collateral concepts which demand an intellectual declaration of bankruptcy?

I have not met one argument as to why rebirth and by extension devas are now irrelevant that has not relied upon scepticism, scientism or materialism. If you have some compelling argument that isn’t based on these as to why these concepts should be ditched please do provide it.

2 Likes
63

According to Bhikkhu Analayo in the above video believe in rebirth is not necessary for our spiritual Path. According to him. It’s perfectly fine if you do not want to deal with it. And the right view of The Noble Eightfold Path has to do with the 4 Noble Truth.

I have never heard that

1 Like
64

Belief that one’s actions have consequences far into the future is part of mundane right view. I think what Ven. Analayo is referring to is putting the idea to one side for the time being if one is unsure about it. That is different to rejecting it altogether. Of course, someone can only put it to one side for a certain amount of time. Eventually the question has to be addressed by the person.

5 Likes
65

Haha, good old catch: “provide compelling arguments that are not based on reason”…

Anyway, to me there is a truth of the mind which is compatible with historical Buddhism. And as a practitioner I don’t care about the heavens, hells, gods, or rebirth for already many years. I seem to do fine as a free thinker and don’t see that ‘believers’ are necessarily better humans or more liberated. So to me the value of Buddhism doesn’t stand or fall with these collateral concepts.

2 Likes
66

They are reason positions, as are a number of other philosophical ideas and positions. Something coming from reason of course doesn’t mean its true and reason alone can lead to some rather bizarre places. I’m reminded of Hume:

Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

Scientism is a blatant folly, materialism runs into serious problem when it comes to mind whilst scepticism doesn’t even leave the starting line and is totally self defeating when followed through to its logical conclusion. However, despite these drawbacks I dismissed them as this is a Buddhist forum. Being such I thought it was rather obvious why these positions are undesirable, given the Blessed One’s explanation of how speculative views arise (being conditioned by contact and feeling).

Anyway, to me there is a truth of the mind which is compatible with historical Buddhism. And as a practitioner I don’t care about the heavens, hells, gods, or rebirth for already many years. I seem to do fine as a free thinker and don’t see that ‘believers’ are necessarily better humans or more liberated. So to me the value of Buddhism doesn’t stand or fall with these collateral concepts.

I see. Naturally I take the opposite position. I have a rather dim view of “secular buddhism”, which as far as I can tell is simply secular humanism with an à la carte approach to the Dhamma.

a free thinker

A term that doesn’t really mean anything.

2 Likes
67

Sorry, but these are sham battles. As if being ‘secular’ or ‘orthodox’ brings us closer to liberation. I know Buddhists who I consider highly developed and they so happen to believe in gods as well. Same with ones who happen to be secular. Why don’t we work on what necessarily belongs to a highly developed Buddhist mind?

68

Well he did give an example of the monks that become Arahant but didn’t get all three knowledges. They didn’t see their past life. So seeing dependent origination has nothing to do with seeing past life. This evidently in the suttas. Where monks saw many outside things and got Enlightened. Or Sāriputta just fanning behind Buddha for example. With the fruit is ripe, it’s ready to eat. We just need to develop the factors. Buddha said the monks that don’t reach enlightenment even after he said it’s about seeing with wisdom didn’t get enlightenment because they didn’t developed the factors.

69

Why would the situation of devas (Gods/dieties has too strong Christian connotations IMO) be in any way similar to gravity?

E.g. zoologists don’t really use theory to predict new species. It’s more like they discover a cave that’s been cut off from the rest of the environment for 200 000 years and they’re like “hey, look at these weird eye-less salamanders, they’re pretty cool!”

Maybe science simply doesn’t have the proper tools or method to discover some types of beings yet? There’s no reason to assume we have come very far scientifically relative to what’s possible.

I think you are being unnecessarily disparaging here. Why don’t you just say “I think materialism is right and I think things that are at odds with 21st century materialist understanding of the world is wrong” instead?

8 Likes
70

That is what we are discussing. To get to the higher mind you need the correct supporting base. Materialism or scepticism is not that base.

As if being ‘secular’ or ‘orthodox’ brings us closer to liberation.

But they do make a difference.

1 Like
71

None of that means that belief in rebirth is not an essential part of mundane right view. It is.

1 Like
72

Because I don’t subscribe to materialism?

I don’t see how we can even discuss these matters. Not to you personally. But if someone tells me “Just wait and see! Eventually we will be able to scientifically produce devices which can make gods visible. Then you’ll see that they really adjust their robes before they start to speak, and these beings who have been in existence since the big bang actually have Indian names. And Mahabrahma is actually an embarrassing baby who pretends to know everything in front of the other gods just in order to look cool. Wait and see!”
With such an orthodox person there is little for me to discuss because we live in different worlds, and the basis for discussion is simply not there.

1 Like
73

I misunderstood you then, my bad.

OK, you cannot have a discussion with this orthodox person of your imagination.

Would it perhaps be better to engage with the views and opinions expressed by the posters in this thread? :slight_smile:

3 Likes
75

Ok. I’m going tell you why you need to remove that attachment also. Your making a importance in it, as if it’s your the one going through samsara. The reasons? What was I in the past? What will be in the future? Did rebirth happen to me?

Besides that there other things to consider if your aiming for Nibbāna.

Here specifically Sayadaw explains this sutta where Buddha says what prevents us from reaching Nirvana.

Taken away by a Deity means doing good deeds for the purpose of being reborn in heaven- the realm of Devas or Brahmāns

Read all here

http://www.myanmarnet.net/nibbana/chanmypl.htm

Your not specifically aiming for that. Consider it as not to be ever your home. Not even have the possibility open in your mind.

So I say just aim for Nibbāna

76

Besides that let’s see what it says in Agamas about leaving wrong view.

Kālāmas, a learned noble disciple abstains from wrong view and abandons wrong view. He holds right view, view that is not distorted. He has these views and makes these declarations:
There is offering, there is sacrifice, there are incantations; there are wholesome and unwholesome deeds, there are results of whole- some or unwholesome deeds; there is this world and the other world, there are father and mother; there are True Persons in the world who are headed for a supreme attainment, who are well gone and well directed, who in this world and another world have [attained] understanding and awakening by themselves, and dwell having personally realized it.
He purifies his mind with regard to wrong view

So again

there are wholesome and unwholesome deeds, there are results of wholesome or unwholesome deeds; there is this world and the other world

The whole point you have to have right view that for whatever I do now I will get result in the next life.

It’s not specifically in the process of thinking the possibility is there. It’s about action. That’s it. Faith in a reason to keep morality.

77

IMHO this is the crux of the modern person’s problem with God/s. We are ready to accept anything said by a scientist in a white Lab coat, damn the evidence. Yet we demand hard proof for religious beliefs. In a way, technology is our modern day religious practice! We cannot accept the Buddha’s proposition (AN7.44) of seven different planes of Conciousness/ existence, supported by meditation practice. Yet, we have no problem accepting the 10 dimensions proposed by String theory, supported by mathematical proof. Is one really all that believable over the other?

1 Like
78

Couple of questions to ponder,

Is it because ‘I am’ and ‘I am human’ that I have human form, feeling… Consciousness ?

Or is it because there sprouted what is generally called human form, feeling,… Consciousness there is the occurrence ‘I am’ and ‘I am human’?

1 Like
79

I realized that this is an ideal place to put in my analysis on this based on Physics and Buddhism. Enjoy!

2 Likes
80

I don’t deny that we live in anti-religious times, because we do. But do we really "accept anything said by a scientist in a white Lab coat, really? Nils Bohr was esoteric - I don’t see anyone saying “Bohr was a physicist, so obviously he must be right about esoteric energies”. There are also scientists who happen to be nazis, maoists, communists, etc., and them being scientists doesn’t elevate their ideology. Also, do you see in the current corona situation that anyone believes all lab coat wearers due to their coat? Nah, that’s a poor argument.

“… damn the evidence”. Right, what is the evidence for gods again? It’s written in books that I’m attached to.

Point taken. So…

Again, the only argument is “It’s written in books I love and which contain other truths I verify and trust. So I take the gods to be truths as well even though I have no way of verifying it”.

Okay, so I’m making fun of the robe-adjusting Indian-names gods in the EBTs. If these are not the gods the faith-follwers believe in, which aspects exactly do they/you believe in? If the robe-adjusting is not true, why actually not? Do I as a faith-follower then pick and choose which god-aspects I believe in and which not? Why is that any better than me rejecting the whole thing?

I think it totally matters to the EBTs as a corpus of texts, where gods play integral narrative roles. Also, as some of you mentioned, god-belief have been dragged down by sutta composers to basically be synonymous to samsara and rebirth. In this sense also early Buddhism as a spiritual practice has been tied to Buddhism as a religion. So yes, it’s pretty important to the socio-historical phenomenon of Buddhism. But it’s not essential for the truth of the mind and hence for liberation - and it’s of course clear that the two realms are interconnected in a complex way.

1 Like
81

Snp4.12
Question
What some say is the truth, Others say is false.
So they argue, disagreeing; Why don’t the ascetics teach one truth?

Buddha
Indeed the truth is one, there’s not another,
about this the One who Knows does not dispute with another,
but the Samaṇas proclaim their varied “truths”
and so they speak not in the same way.

Question
Why do they speak such varied truths, these so-called experts, disputatious—
Are there really many and various truths, Or do they just rehearse their logic?

Buddha
Indeed, there are not many and varied truths differing from perception of the ever-true in the world;
but they work upon their views with logic: “Truth! Falsehood!” So they speak in dualities.

Based on what is seen, heard, On precepts and vows, or what is cognized,
They look down on others. Convinced of their own theories,
pleased with themselves, They say, “My opponent is a fool, no expert.”

They consider themselves expert for the same reasons That they despise their opponent as a fool.
Calling themselves experts, they despise the other, Yet they speak the very same way.

And since perfected in some extreme view, puffed with pride and maddened by conceit, he anoints himself as though the master-mind,
likewise thinking his view’s perfected too.

If their opponent says they are deficient, They too are of deficient understanding.
But if they are wise and knowledgeable, Then there are no fools among the ascetics.

“Anyone who teaches a doctrine other than this, Has fallen short of purity and perfection.”
This is what followers of other paths say, Passionately defending their very different views.

“Here alone is purity,” so they say, “There is no purity in the teachings of others.”
This is what followers of other paths strongly assert, Each entrenched in their own different path.

Strongly asserting their own path, What opponent would they take to be a fool?
They would only bring trouble on themselves By calling an opponent a fool of impure teachings.

Convinced of their own theories, Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories, They don’t have any problems with the world.

… That is why my personal position in all such matters is to keep an open mind, not adhering to fixed views of what is/is not, neither accepting everything on face value, nor rejecting outright… instead focussing my efforts on skillful means to put an end to dukkha.
:sunflower:

P.S Perhaps, being a physician helps… this is exactly how we are trained to think and act. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go well with the large majority who demand immediate, unequivocal answers to questions like “Does HCQ cure COVID or not?” and don’t like answers such as “It depends”!

MN100
Master Gotama, do gods absolutely exist?”

“I’ve understood the existence of gods in terms of causes.”

{See Piya Tan’s translation and detailed discussion of this statement in the Sangarava sutta - para 3.2 page 110 in this document}

8 Likes