| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 7:32PM #1 | |
|
I would like to know the opinion of Buddhists as wether Buddhism is or is not an Athesitic religious philosophy. It is my understanding that most Buddhists both in "the East" and in "the West" were in the past and still are Atheists. It is my understanding that due to the doctrine of Imperance a "Theistic" God does cannot exist. The foundation of Buddhism is the Four Noble Truths. There is nothing in the Four Noble Truths that require an unchanging, everlasting deity that is concerned with the personal affairs of men that should be worshipped. There is nothing that I am aware of in practices of Three Jewels Noble Eightfold Path Morality · Perfections Meditation · Mindfulness Wisdom · Compassion that is dependent of the existence of God.
The only reason that I am aware for the claim that Buddhism is a "Theistic" religion is in the Buddhist's doctrine of Dharmakāya "Ultimate Reality". But it seems to me that if Dharmakaya is "God" it is an "impersonal" God that does not require worship. That doesn't really care what happens to individuals, is not the source of morality and does not punish or reward a person for being either moral or immoral.
HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 7:55PM #2 | |
|
To me it's pretty simple: Atheism means "without belief in god/s", it's a pretty simple concept. Buddhist practice is about awakening to the true self, seeking reality, not seeking a god. One is religion, one is philosophy. One typically cares about death, one typically cares about life. They are opposites to me at the fundamental level. Further-when Buddhist gods are mentioned, mostly as left overs from brahmanism, they are allegorical. For example, they remind me of Aesop's fables. Take the fable about the frog that gives a scorpion a ride across the river.... did this really happen? Did some frog actually have a discussion and negotiate a deal with a scorpion and give him a ride, only to be stung and killed halfway across? No, the story is about the inescapability of one's nature. Stories about Buddhist gods are the same thing-allegories to make a point.
I'm aware that some sects WORSHIP a being, a buddha, several buddhas, buddhas and bodhisattvas, huge pantheons of various "entities"... which means one could draw a parallel between such a sect and perhaps Catholicism... .but there's still that problem of some central "all powerful" god always missing in Buddhism-no matter how "theist" the sect may seem. From my perspective, because they have missed the point-and worship an external entity... they have "reverted to the views of non-Buddhists." Ultimately, I agree with you-most Buddhist sects are clearly atheist-there is no focus on any god or gods, but on the dharma. What we are victims of here is wishful thinking on the part of those who are not interested in Buddhism, but rather want everything to get along-and be the same, when it is simply not the same. Someone made a decent argument that Buddhism is "non-theist". But I feel it is atheist. Does it have a god belief or not? No, it does not: Therefore it is LACKING or WITHOUT a god belief and thus accurately described as "atheist". "atheist" is as much an adjective as it is a noun. So I can describe myself as "an atheist Buddhist", although I would suspect that the educated might find the adjective redundant. Either way, one could describe Buddhism as an "atheist faith", which is not redundant as faith can be with or without a god, most are with, Buddhism is without. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:03PM #3 | |
|
how does it matter? if it is atheist, then what? or if it's not atheist, what difference would it be? what do you mean by atheist?
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:08PM #4 | |
|
How can you mold anything into atheism? It has NO beliefs-just one disbelief. So you can describe something as atheist, or theist-both are valid adjectives. For example-do you think my cat is an atheist or a theist-or do you think I would ask such a thing to mold an objetive concept into something else? Obviously my cat is an atheist cat, again redundant-but makes my point about Buddhism. And the claim is beyond ironic-who here actually tries to mold Buddhism into something it is not? It is completely the opposite of Abrahamic faiths, yet you actually try to suggest that Buddha taught about your god. There is some molding going on for sure, but there is no molding needed to make the argument that Buddhism is "atheistic". That would be like saying I was "Molding sugar into captain crunch" -IT'S ALREADY THERE!! LOL |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:12PM #5 | |
let's see if the Buddhists here who disagree have the intellectual honesty to speak up.
there's enough money for free college and health care, it's not a matter of HAVING the money, it's a matter of priorities. and this country feels death and murder of foreigners through war is more important than the health and well being of its own citizens.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:14PM #6 | |
Well, so far the Buddhists' vote is 2 votes YES 0 votes NO |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:17PM #7 | |
|
But the funny thing to me is ... bahais are screwed whether Buddhism is theist or not. See-you don't just need theism for Buddhism to back up Bahai. You need MONOTHEISM. And, you need an ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, CREATING, MONOTHEIST GOD. And no Buddhist anywhere would ever agree to that-because there is nothing anywhere in Buddhism to afford agreement to that. So frankly... I've never followed why you act like atheism matters in the first place. While I don't think you'll even make it past atheism.... you have so far to go for Buddhism to come close to backing up Bahai's ridiculous and incorrect claims about Buddhism... You act as though this first step is the only one, when really it would have about 10 more after that. Perhaps you plan to "cross that bridge when you come to it". |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:34PM #8 | |
|
The middle way isn't theist or atheist, nor is it not theist or atheist. Such speculation of the unconjecturable can lead to vexation. Questions such as these don't lead to unbinding, awakening, but clinging to opinions on the unconjecturable leads to suffering. Further, continued posting on a board that encourages Buddhists and non-Buddhists to argue about Buddhism leads to the clinging of mental fabrications which produces suffering. Wishing you all small tranquil days, Bob
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:38PM #9 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 1 year ago :: Feb 07, 2012 - 10:13PM #10 | |
|
take any definition of atheism you like, and then put it together with point 1
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|