Buddhist Deities really Deities?

[Tirisilex]

Buddhist Deities. I was taught that the Buddhist Deities were not Gods but celestial beings they are Godlike but not really Gods. Deity is synonymous with god so this interpretation is wrong. Why they call them deities in the Buddhist texts that we have in english is beyond me.

[Catsquotl]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

Buddhist Deities. I was taught that the Buddhist Deities were not Gods but celestial beings they are Godlike but not really Gods. Deity is synonymous with god so this interpretation is wrong. Why they call them deities in the Buddhist texts that we have in english is beyond me.

I would think that the people translating the Buddhist texts weren't aware of how you were taught the difference between god, deity and celestial beings.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

Buddhist Deities. I was taught that the Buddhist Deities were not Gods but celestial beings they are Godlike but not really Gods. Deity is synonymous with god so this interpretation is wrong. Why they call them deities in the Buddhist texts that we have in english is beyond me.

From the Lankavatara Sutra:

The doctrine of the Tathágata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment. All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

[Podshell]

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."[5]

Thus it is on the strength of śāstric authority that Vaiṣṇavas accept Lord Buddha as an incarnation of God. Śrīla Prabhupāda emphasizes the critical necessity of such evidence when identifying an incarnation: "Each and every avatāra, or incarnation of the Lord, has a particular mission, and they are all described in the revealed scriptures. No one should be accepted as an avatāra unless he is referred to by scriptures."[6]



Read more: https://vanipedia.org/wiki/Buddha:_A...#ixzz7vBdmrEzf

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Podshell

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist."[5]

Thus it is on the strength of śāstric authority that Vaiṣṇavas accept Lord Buddha as an incarnation of God. Śrīla Prabhupāda emphasizes the critical necessity of such evidence when identifying an incarnation: "Each and every avatāra, or incarnation of the Lord, has a particular mission, and they are all described in the revealed scriptures.

Very nice, but is this a Hindu view on what a Buddha is? I would be careful with using a Hare Krishna guru's view on Buddhism. Just go straight to a Buddhist.

I think the key point that needs discussing is what does one think a God is?

A Buddha creates pure lands. You could think of this universe as a pure land. Does that make Buddha a God?

Yes and No

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Tirisilex

Buddhist Deities. I was taught that the Buddhist Deities were not Gods but celestial beings they are Godlike but not really Gods.

What would be the difference between them?

To my knowledge, in Buddhism as well as Jainism, one can incarnate as a deity. A long and prosperous life with so much joy that one forgets about seeking enlightenment. And on the other end, one can incarnate in hellish realms, where one is in so much pain that one can't do any spiritual practice.

[Maisy]

I think God basically means a super powerful being. Apollo and Aphrodite were Greek Gods. But then in some schools (Tibetan?) of Buddhism they wanted to point out some Gods were more advanced than others so they came up with the Demi-God idea. It's funny because why stop at 2 categories. How about something higher than a God and a little less than a Demi-God.

I would also assume in the schools of Buddhism that have Demi-Gods, a human could advance to this level at some point, then up to a God.

Ah yes found this on the internet:

What can a person be reborn as?

Within Buddhism there are five or six possible forms that rebirth can take. These are from the highest to the lowest: gods, demi-gods, human, animal, hungry ghost and hell creature. Rebirth as a human being is considered to be particularly fortuitous as it is thought to be rare and it is held that one has the best chance for enlightenment when in this state of existence.

So six levels.... we are right below demi-god and god. Demi-Gods are said to be unhappy and argue a lot so no idea why they would be higher than humans but then they probably have some better qualities than us.

[Maisy]

In Hinduism there is the creator "cause" Godhead; Brahman, the divine source of being.

Buddha did not like the idea of a creator God for a bunch of reasons. Buddha thought if one believed in a creator God, they would become lazy and not work on enlightenment.

In the Tevijja Sutta two brahmins argue about how best to reach union with Brahma (Brahmasahavyata), who is seen as the highest god over whom no other being has mastery and who sees all. However, after being questioned by the Buddha, it is revealed that they do not have any direct experience of this Brahma. The Buddha calls their religious goal laughable, vain, and empty.

Buddha was into things we could directly experience, not speculation.

In the early texts, the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist, but more as a skeptic who is against religious speculations. Buddha emphasized we are responsible for our incarnations and progress, not a creator God. We are making ourselves in a sense by our actions and the karma that comes from that.

In the Aṅguttara Nikāya. This doctrine of creation by a supreme lord is defined as follows: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences, all that is due to the creation of a supreme deity (issaranimmāṇahetu).Buddha criticized this view because he saw it as a fatalistic teaching that would lead to inaction or laziness:

"So, then, owing to the creation of a supreme deity, men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a god as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed."

In another early sutta (Devadahasutta, Majjhima Nikāya, the Buddha sees the pain and suffering that is experienced by certain individuals as indicating that if they were created by a god, then this is likely to be an evil god.

"if the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused by the creative act of a Supreme God, then the Nigaṇṭhas surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God, since they now feel such painful, racking, piercing feelings."

I think it's pretty clear what Buddha's thoughts were. He felt if we believed a creator God made us, we could blame this God for all we do and are. Instead Buddha taught we are responsible for what we are. We incarnate according to our nature and our nature is wholly created by ourselves.

I think a spiritual path like Buddhism is about changing our nature. From being self centered, mean, etc stressed out, in conflict, to having a nature of peace, loving kindness etc. What we are and do is the instrument of change, not belief in Gods and such.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Maisy

Demi-Gods are said to be unhappy and argue a lot so no idea why they would be higher than humans but then they probably have some better qualities than us.

Higher in the sense that they have higher 'sense pleasures' than we do.

[Podshell]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Very nice, but is this a Hindu view on what a Buddha is?

I think the key point that needs discussing is what does one think a God is?

Those scriptures are universal,like the bona fide guru,they are for all.
I sometimes wonder if Christ used clever methods to save peoples' souls,methods that to us seem like trickery-I for instance am convinced that others as well as Christians can be saved,but Christ said he is the only way to god-if a shepherd saves his flock from going over a cliff by making it appear that the sheepdog is trying to eat them,they are tricked but saved,will they bear grudge to the shepherd for the trick/lie? I think they would praise his cleverness.So sometimes Christians may take offence at this explanation but for some it may hopefully be a step forward,I apply the same to the explanation of Buddha and Buddhism.Loving parents will never forget you even if you forget them,they will always be there to help.