[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Michel Clasquin]

curt wrote:
>>  
>>
  > Neither Mara nor the Earth Goddess are "bit players" in the great
> "Passion" of the Buddha's Final Awakening. Probably the most archetypal 
> representation of the Buddha is the "earth-touching" Buddha - which 
> recounts the very moment at which the Buddha called upon the Earth 
> Goddess to help in putting Mara in his place.

My point, exactly. It is "the Earth-touching Buddha" in the centre of 
the picture, not "the Buddha-supporting Earth Goddess".

> The Buddha's "attitude" toward the supposedly all-powerful creator God 
> of the Christians is not particularly relevant. 

Quite so, since he seems to have been blissfully unaware of it.

>The Buddha's orientation 
> toward the Gods and Goddesses of his "own" culture are what we should 
> look at. While the Buddha is portrayed as "teaching" the Gods we should 
> recall that there are stories of Vishnu worshiping Shiva and Shiva 
> worshiping Vishnu. And there is also a famous story in which the child 
> Krishna teaching Brahma a thing or two. The spiritual matrix of which 
> Buddhism was a part provides the only reasonable context in which to 
> assess Buddhism's "take" on theological matters.

Whoa! You've just jumped from *the Buddha's* view to that of *Buddhism*! 
  I'm happy to concede that there is a link between the two, but still ...

> It is not a weak argument when used against the sweeping statement that 
> it is used against. One doesn't need a pile driver to hammer in a single 
> nail. When arguing against the claim that Buddhism "does not allow for 
> the existence of God" - the reference to Asoka is positively 
> devastating. It is a death-blow, a master stroke, he never seen it 
> comin' ... etc.

OK, if you say so.

>> 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.
> 
> Please tell me how you have determined this - that is, what kind of yard 
> stick are you using to measure the "depth" of the influence of the 
> indigenous polytheistic traditions of Korea and Japan on Buddhism in 
> those countries. 

You are so right. Excuse me for a moment. <beats breast shouting "mea 
culpa!">. Ahh, that feels so much better. I retract the statement and 
replace it with:

"It *could be* a bit like hanging a picture of the current President in 
a public school, even if you voted for the other guy. Of course, one 
would need at least ten years of intensive field work to find out the 
truth of the matter. Please send money."

> Buddhism, as the easy-going religion that it is, leaves 
> plenty of room for people who are allergic to all forms of traditional 
> piety (they are, after all, deserving of compassion, like anyone 
> suffering from an affliction). But those allergy-sufferers would be 
> wrong to smugly think that their hypoallergenic version of Buddhism is 
> somehow superior to that of those who enthusiastically pray to both the 
> Buddha and the Mountain God or the Sun Goddess.

OK, the point of Buddhism seems to be to "attain" something called 
"enlightenment". Does the Sun Goddess have that to hand out? Does the 
Buddha? Oh no, wait, we actually have to do it ourselves! Thus have I 
heard, anyway. So, to turn your metaphor around:

Buddhism, as the easy-going religion that it is, leaves plenty of room 
for people who are too weak-willed and wrapped up in worldly affairs to 
make a serious attempt at the lifetyle required to make progress in the 
dharma and confine themselves to worshipping gods which the Buddhist 
literature clearly state have no ability to attain nirvana themselves, 
far less hand it to others (they are, after all, deserving of 
compassion, like anyone suffering from an affliction). But those sons of 
householders would be wrong to smugly think that their heavily-modified 
version of Buddhism is somehow superior to that of those who are trying 
to make the effort one way or another.

Chicken, meet egg. Egg, chicken. Which of you two came first? A bit of 
both, perhaps?

> The question that you are stating is not a complex one at all. It is 
> merely an attempt to "understand" (at best - at worst, to redefine) 
> Buddhism with respect to terminology that is peculiar to another 
> Religious tradition altogether. Buddhism does not have a "position" on 
> questions of Judeo-Christian "theology". 
> Why would anyone think that it 
> would? 

Because, like it or lump it, that is the terminology that is dominant in 
today's intellectual world. It is the terminology that is deeply 
embedded in the English language which you and I are both using today. 
It is the terminology that is being used to determine whether Buddhism 
is a "religion" or not, a small matter which besides any intrinsic 
interest, as Richard points out in another post, has practical implications.

And yes, Buddhism as a conglomerate of half a billion people can't be 
said to have much of a position on anything (the same is true of 
Christianity or any other conglomerate). But quite a few people who have 
played leading roles in it do have thoughts on the subject. These guys, 
for instance, have been at it for 20 years: 
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bcs/


> Finally - it is a bit of quaintly old-fashioned (positively Colonial!) 
> hubris to refer to the Gods of India, China, Japan and Korea as 
> "non-eternal godlings who are neither powerful or wise" in direct 
> comparison to the bloodthirsty gaseous invertebrate worshiped by the 
> Christians.

1. They *are* non-eternal, at least the Indian ones. It is stated 
several times in a number of texts that even the gods die with the 
dissolution of a particular universe. The Aganna Sutta, to name just one.
2. If they were powerful, they would declare themselves enlightened and 
simply *be* it. if they were wise, they would attain it by themselves. 
Instead, we see them trembling in case the bodhisatta might decide not 
to teach, for they need his teaching rather badly.

Finally, it is a bit of emotional blackmail to compare one's debating 
partners to allergy sufferers. Not to mention insensitive and crude to 
insinuate that one's neighbour's God lacks a backbone. <vbg>

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