[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[curt]

Michel Clasquin wrote:
>  
>> (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.

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.

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

>
>> (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>

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. Now if it had been used against even a moderately 
nuanced and informed statement that would be another thing.

>
>> (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.

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. 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.
>
> 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.
>
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? It is like asking a Christian to choose which God should be given 
precedence - Shiva or Vishnu? Or how many Bardos there are, and what the 
best way to traverse them is.

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.

- Curt