Original Buddhism: Theist or Atheist?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I've studied and continue to study many Buddhist works & viewpoints and was wondering for those who've studied Buddhism or Buddhist works:

Do you believe that the Original teachings of the Buddha were Theistic or Atheistic?

Please support what you say via scholarship (ex. Quotes from the Nikayas) or critical work.

I believe that the original teachings of Buddha were Theist, due to the fact that the Buddha studied Yog or "Yoga" (Digha Nikaya) along with Pranayama or "Prana Control" (Digha Nikaya) techniques that were both associated with a religious viewpoint that Yog (Sanscrit word) or "Yoking" (English literal meaning of Yoga) was the path to Brahman who was both a personal & impersonal God not represented via the "Hindu" pantheon but who predated the "Hindu" pantheon of Gods & Goddesses.

Thanks!
hellas1

[Keravnos]

I have been looking for the Nikayas myself. I wonder if you could provide me with a link to them.
I would like to try to read on early Buddhism as much as I can, as I need it to help me with my EB work, aka establish a trait system that is as close to early Bhuddism as possible.

Is there a link between Nikaya Buddhism and the Nikaia founded by Alexandros during his campaign in the Punjab? (On the opposite side of Boukephala).
I have read that it was there that a conglomeration of Hellenistic philosophy and Indian Buddhism occured producing Nikaya Bhuddism.
Like I said, I would like to read more on Nikaya Buddhism, so anything you could help me with, I would certainly be grateful.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Atheist.

[Tankbuster]

The teachings and doctrines of buddhism don't require a supernatural authority and don't make any mention of that.
As such, the philosophy is not theist, which can only make it 'atheistic'.

[Stalins Ghost]

I disagree with labeling it either, and I'm quite sure Buddha probably would too.

It may not feature the worship of a particular God per-se, but that does not mean it is necessarily sans belief in a form of spirituality and central importance of a harmonious world order. It's too simplistic to label it one or the other.

[Don in the North]

atheist all the way. theyd have to beleive in a god for it to be theistic.
they dont. therefore they pertain to the atheist category

[Stalins Ghost]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

[Arch-hereticK]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

A light bulb is either on or off. There's no middle ground if it's a yes/no question.

Of course theism exists in sub sects within buddhism, but the vast majority is atheist.

[chilon]

A light bulb is either on or off. There's no middle ground if it's a yes/no question.

Of course theism exists in sub sects within buddhism, but the vast majority is atheist.

Inaccurate analogy.

Buddhist logic (Nagarjuna) itself is about showing how there is not just "on or and only or off" but also "
both on and off" and "neither on nor off".

The "vast majority" of Buddhists would not label themselves as either.

[Stalins Ghost]

Light bulbs are either on or off when we're talking about light bulbs.

Not when we're talking about a philosophical and spiritual way of life.

[Arch-hereticK]

Light bulbs are either on or off when we're talking about light bulbs.

You're saying that it's not a yes/no situation?

[Don in the North]

spirtuality and theism are not mutually exclusive, and never have been.

[clandestino]

From my superficial knowledge about buddhism I believe that it had nothing to do with god in the beginning, actually it wasn't even a religion, more like philosophical system. I think that only latter people turned it into religion cause it was easier to believe that you can reach salvation by worshiping Buddha/God then reaching it on your own by endless meditation and fasting, or however Buddha reached nirvana.

[Stalins Ghost]

Absolutely. Buddhism does not state that there is no supreme order of things. It is just to be found in a different place. Buddhism is esoteric (the believe that divinity lies within the self) rather than exoteric (that divinity lies outside the self.) I suppose the best term would be auto-theism. This is not simply between the believe in the divine or the lack of said belief, because Buddhism is thoroughly sure that there is divinity and enlightenment out there.

[Arch-hereticK]

Absolutely. Buddhism does not state that there is no supreme order of things. It is just to be found in a different place. Buddhism is esoteric (the believe that divinity lies within the self) rather than exoteric (that divinity lies outside the self.) I suppose the best term would be auto-theism. This is not simply between the believe in the divine or the lack of said belief, because Buddhism is thoroughly sure that there is divinity and enlightenment out there.

Divinity and enlightenment is certainly not a god.
Do they believe in a god? No.

Of course there are sub-sects that are theists, likewise there are sub-sets that are anti-theist.
There is no blurry line here, they are not theists; by default they are atheists.

[Denny Crane!]

There were mentions of meetings with the Brahma but we have to bear certain things in mind.

First not a lot of what buddha originally said is known, whether or not we have anything at all left is a matter of some speculation. Like in Tibetan buddhism and when buddhism spread even further beyond China it has always been prone to getting mixed with local spirituality and in particular Hindu Veddic theology and mythology. With that in mind we have to consider what buddhism is.

Buddhism is a system intended to produce results. The results specifically being an escape from suffering, from a false sense of attachment to the self and to anchors that lock you in the past or the future. It is the achievement of the 'true self' and once this is achieved then you have achieved nibana. That could be viewed as some superfantastic nebulous events or an idealised kind of ultimate mental health.

So when considering a deity in buddhism you have to ask is it useful? I believe not because it can only interfere with creating more attachment to the self and creating more anchors to the world to try and give yourself more permanence. With that in mind, God is just not a useful idea to a buddhist. I think one of the few things we can be certain about is that buddhist ideas are not meant to be dogmatic.

[hellas1]

Hi all & thanks for your responses!

@Denny Crane!

Brahma IS mentioned in the Nikayas (Teachings of the Buddha) but BRAHMAN is not.
Buddha was practical and as such saying that there is NO god in Buddhism is off point.
Why?

I mentioned Original Buddhism. The Pali texts are reflective of Theravada Buddhism which is a sect of original Buddhism or Buddha's teachings which were divided in 24 different sects about 200-300 years after the Buddha died. BRAHMAN existed before Brahma. The upanishads say ALL beings were created from his (Brahman's) mouth!

Research it and see.

Furthermore, In the Nikayas, Buddha practiced yoga & pranayama, practices which deal with union with BRAHMAN (A personal & impersonal God, not gods.) After his enlightenment, the Buddha praised his 2 former teachers who practiced yoga as being the only ones who could understand his teachings.


@Keravnos,

Yes, some sources for you:

Wisdom Publications: Digha/Samyutta/Majjihima Nikayas

Indian Buddhism by A.K. Warder

Non-Duality by David Loy (Discusses similarities between Buddhism, Samkhya yoga & Vedanta along with Mr. Loy's disagreement regarding the true essence of mind in the Nikayas vs. Theravada viewpoint) Interesting stuff!

The shape of ancient thought: a comparative study of indian & early greek philosophy
(Awesome book brother!)

Regarding the Pali Nikayas & Greek Philosophy: The Bactrian Kingdom had Milinda or Menander who was a convert to Buddhism. Which type I don't know! The Milindapannha is a polemic regarding him & a buddhist and how he (Menander) ultimately converted. It is considered a late work and obviously not part of the Buddha's teachings.

Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism by Joaquin Perez-Ramon

Later,
hellas1

[Denny Crane!]

Hi all & thanks for your responses!

@Denny Crane!

Brahma IS mentioned in the Nikayas (Teachings of the Buddha) but BRAHMAN is not.
Buddha was practical and as such saying that there is NO god in Buddhism is off point.
Why?

Do you not read my posts? I mention that there was a meeting with brahma. I should have said 'a brahma' which is entirely correct, used to display I believe that the concepts in vedic hinduism are false and to display the buddhist thought. That is why it is relevant and here is one of the passages.

Baka Brahmā (literally "crane-Brahmā") appears in the Majjhima Nikaya, where he is a deity who believes that his world is permanent and without decay (and that therefore he is immortal), and that therefore there are no higher worlds than his. The Buddha refutes Baka's claims, relating the concept of anitya or impermanence,

As for the relevance of my comments, you mentioned original buddhism, well that means you have to reflect on the buddhist thoughts and texts which is what I am doing.

[/U]
I mentioned Original Buddhism. The Pali texts are reflective of Theravada Buddhism which is a sect of original Buddhism or Buddha's teachings which were divided in 24 different sects about 200-300 years after the Buddha died. BRAHMAN existed before Brahma. The upanishads say ALL beings were created from his (Brahman's) mouth!

Research it and see.

I didn't mention Brahman, brahma being like an individual deity or deities as conceived in some of the buddhist words and in some hindu works. Brahman is a unifying concept meant to signify an almost pantheistic concept.

Read my posts properly please

Furthermore, In the Nikayas, Buddha practiced yoga & pranayama, practices which deal with union with BRAHMAN (A personal & impersonal God, not gods.) After his enlightenment, the Buddha praised his 2 former teachers who practiced yoga as being the only ones who could understand his teachings.

In many ways I think the seeking of understanding of brahman and the concept of nibana are similar in some ways certainly in their pursuit of understanding of themselves and meditative practices, not sure why you think I'd object to that. Ultimately though the Buddha was seeking a better understanding of himself not of a greater force.

Please don't write underlined. It makes reading your posts unnecessarily difficult.

[Babur]

it was atheist since it rejected the teachings of the Vedas and saw that one could find enlightenment without it.

They don't believe in Lord Rama or Krishna either.

[Watercress]

The organization of original buddhism does seem rather theist, but belief siding more to the atheist side.