[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Michel Clasquin]

curt wrote:

> The statement that Buddhism "does not allow for the existence of God" is 
> certainly wrong. First of all it is worded wrongly - the question is 
> whether or not Buddhism "allows for" Divine Beings. The given wording 
> presupposes that one must choose between "God" singular and "no God".

Hmmm, yes, who are we to "allow" God to exist or not? "Recognise" might 
have been a more fortunate turn of phrase

> But more importantly, Buddhism quite clearly does "allow for" Divine 
> Beings. Specifically:
> 
> (1) The traditional story of the Buddha's enlightenment involves, at 
> it's climax, three main characters - two of whom are Supernatural 
> entities. These are Mara the Deceiver, and the Earth Goddess. The other 
> main character is, of course, the Buddha.
 >
> (2) The Buddha is also traditionally supposed to have called upon 
> various Gods, such as Baka Brahma, in order to teach them.

True, true. But these gods are strictly bit players working for union 
scales. The Buddha is the star of the show. The initial point of 
departure of this discussion was a comparison to the Judeo-Christian 
notion of divinity, and in their scriptures you may see an old 
curmudgeon like Abraham arguing with God (surely Richard Hayes in a 
previous birth?) but not politely inviting him over for a spot of 
instruction. With God being the instructee, not the instructor.

The Buddhist "gods" are perhaps more comparable to angels in 
Judaism/Christianity/Islam - long-lived and powerful, but by no means 
All-powerful Creators.

> (3) One of the pivotal figures in the early spread of Buddhism was Asoka 
> - whose favorite epithet for himself was "Beloved of the Gods."

Now this is a weak argument, Curt. Queen Elizabeth II may be the 
Protector of the Faith even when there are more Muslims than Anglicans 
in her country, and crown prince William-Alexander of the Netherlands 
may be called Prince of Orange even if his family hasn't actually ruled 
that French city for centuries, but both are fairly meaningless little 
datapoints - semantic fossils, really. Royal epithets tend to survive 
over centuries (and are eagerly snapped up without change by parvenu 
dynasties like the Mauryas BTW) even when they cease to have actual meaning.

Hey, my own name derives from a Hebrew root meaning "He who is as God". 
Does that mean I can't be a Buddhist anymore unless a real Buddha calls 
on me to give me teaching? <g>

> (4) In both Korea and Japan (as well as many other Buddhist countries) 
> Buddhist temples often include shrines to various traditional Gods.

Again, you are correct. I'm sure there will be a Buddhist centre with a 
crucifix on the wall very soon. If there isn't one already.

But establishing a shrine so as not to offend the local deities (and 
even more, the local authorities) does not imply going along wholesale 
with all the attendant ideology. It is a bit like hanging a picture of 
the current President in a public school, even if you voted for the 
other guy.

The original question was whether Buddhism can be a religion if it does 
not believe in GOD, the Eternal, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-knowing 
Creator of Everything. It is a complex question, but not one that is 
answered satisfactorily by pointing out that Buddhism does sort of 
recognise the existence of non-eternal, localised godlings who are 
neither powerful nor wise.

Michel

-- 
"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
-- Bertrand Russell