Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Ben wrote:I think that one of the issues here seem to be arising from not agreeing on what constitutes theism.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe

I am going to take the specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, as an important qualification in the definition. And if I were to use the above definition then I would conclude that while gods exist within the Buddhist cosmology, it is essentially an atheistic doctrine because of the rejection of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
kind regards,

Ben

Hi Ben,
Yet the definition includes "belief in the existence of a god or gods" which is the aspect I stated was being used here. not the narrow but the wide definition.

for whatever reason my reply hasn't appeared so second attempt.

tiltbillings wrote:

Cittasanto wrote: you had a problem with the depiction of god/s specifically with what Pema said, and this is what I have been responding to with regard to Pema Chodrons quote specifically.

I have a "problem" with what she said in as much as it really does not account for what is actually going on in the texts and how the doctors of Buddhism in India have dealt with the issue.

Still doesn't answer the questions.
how is what she said against the Buddhist attitude toward gods?

Cittasanto wrote:

Ben wrote:I think that one of the issues here seem to be arising from not agreeing on what constitutes theism.

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe

I am going to take the specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, as an important qualification in the definition. And if I were to use the above definition then I would conclude that while gods exist within the Buddhist cosmology, it is essentially an atheistic doctrine because of the rejection of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
kind regards,

Ben

Hi Ben,
Yet the definition includes "belief in the existence of a god or gods" which is the aspect I stated was being used here. not the narrow but the wide definition.

Can't talk about god in Buddhism without talking about gods.

Cittasanto wrote:for whatever reason my reply hasn't appeared so second attempt.

tiltbillings wrote:

Cittasanto wrote: you had a problem with the depiction of god/s specifically with what Pema said, and this is what I have been responding to with regard to Pema Chodrons quote specifically.

I have a "problem" with what she said in as much as it really does not account for what is actually going on in the texts and how the doctors of Buddhism in India have dealt with the issue.

Still doesn't answer the questions.
how is what she said against the Buddhist attitude toward gods?

Did I say anything about "against?" Her warm and fuzzy point was hardly complete, which is the point.

tiltbillings wrote:Did I say anything about "against?" Her warm and fuzzy point was hardly complete, which is the point.

When I am having to ask the question in as many ways as possible because you are not being clear on your objection....

tiltbillings wrote:Can't talk about god in Buddhism without talking about gods.

yet you have stuck with the deluded view of such beings instead of dealing with my point, even when you noted that my point is possible,
as quotes on page 4.

Cittasanto wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Can't talk about god in Buddhism without talking about gods.

yet you have stuck with the deluded view of such beings instead of dealing with my point, even when you noted that my point is possible,
as quotes on page 4.

After looking at page 4, damdifino what you point is. Maybe you could restate it in lucid concise English.

Cittasanto wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Did I say anything about "against?" Her warm and fuzzy point was hardly complete, which is the point.

When I am having to ask the question in as many ways as possible because you are not being clear on your objection....

You might want to rephrase your question, but quite frankly, I have answered your question.

tiltbillings wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Did I say anything about "against?" Her warm and fuzzy point was hardly complete, which is the point.

When I am having to ask the question in as many ways as possible because you are not being clear on your objection....

You might want to rephrase your question, but quite frankly, I have answered your question.

No you have not, and not interested.

tiltbillings wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:Can't talk about god in Buddhism without talking about gods.

yet you have stuck with the deluded view of such beings instead of dealing with my point, even when you noted that my point is possible,
as quotes on page 4.

After looking at page 4, damdifino what you point is. Maybe you could restate it in lucid concise English.

it is lucid, and I am not staying in your cyclic opinion of the deluded view of such beings which has been stated as not the point being looked at several times.

Cittasanto wrote:
it is lucid, and I am not staying in your cyclic opinion of the deluded view of such beings which has been stated as not the point being looked at several times.

If there is a specific missive you have in mind, then provide the link to it rather than just saying Page 4. Providing a link is easily done, and if you actually want a response to your questions, you would make that effort.

Is it this msg:


http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p195910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p195928" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p195940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/memberlist.p ... ofile&u=54" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p195966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, I did the work for you, tell me which of these msgs I am supposed to be responding to. And I have no idea what this is trying to say: "I am not staying in your cyclic opinion of the deluded view of such beings which has been stated as not the point being looked at several times."

Not directed at anyone in particular...

Please "play nice".

Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben

To restate my point of view of what is found in the suttas in response to the question: "What about God in the Buddha's teachings?"

Simply, the Buddha addressed the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, finding such an idea wanting, and the Buddha also acknowledged the notion of a multiplicity of gods in the culture of his time, and he characterize these gods as being mortal, kamma bound beings.

That is the bare bones of what is found in the suttas and one can flesh this out in far greater detail. One very good example is found here in the essay The Buddhist Attitude to God.

Buddhism and the God-idea

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/1 ... a-buddhist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the OP

personally I believe this misrepresents Theravada as there are gods found in the texts, how Buddhism Vissions Gods may not be in the same light, but that doesn't mean that they aren't included.

Ben wrote: I am going to take the specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, as an important qualification in the definition. And if I were to use the above definition then I would conclude that while gods exist within the Buddhist cosmology, it is essentially an atheistic doctrine because of the rejection of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

I agree with this definition. Opinions, definitions will vary, but I think this one applies to Buddhism, especially Theravada.

Cittasanto, what would you call Buddhism, theistic or non-theistic? Or what other label? If theistic, which type, monotheistic or polytheistic?

Monotheism does not apply for obvious reasons.
Polytheism does not apply since the gods are not eternal and are samsaric beings, sometimes with attainments and powers, sometimes with no attainments and full of delusion.
Non-theistic applies the most and is how Buddhism is most often described, which makes it de facto atheistic too in the definition above.