Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Thanks for the link cooran.

Instead if refuting the existence of gods, the Buddha was teaching people not to believe in or follow any god. Seems to have simular objectives as atheism.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."

Note, 'the gods'. The Gods' that are referred to here are rather more like the Roman and Greek pantheon.

When Christianity was formed, it did inherit some of the attributes of the pagan faiths which proceeded it. Nevertheless, God as Jesus Christ ought not to be confused with the pagan Gods of either East or West. Nor should Christianity be understood as the worship of a pantheistic deity.

It would be preferable to understand what Christianity and Buddhism have in common - which is a great deal - than to engage in sectarian polemics. All the spiritual traditions in the world, East and West, are equally threatened by scientific atheism, which has no more regard for the the Buddha Dhamma that it does for Hanuman or Zeus.

Just advice, that's all.

sunyavadin wrote:Note, 'the gods'. The Gods' that are referred to here are rather more like the Roman and Greek pantheon.

When Christianity was formed, it did inherit some of the attributes of the pagan faiths which proceeded it. Nevertheless, God as Jesus Christ ought not to be confused with the pagan Gods of either East or West. Nor should Christianity be understood as the worship of a pantheistic deity.

It would be preferable to understand what Christianity and Buddhism have in common - which is a great deal - than to engage in sectarian polemics.

One need not engage in sectarian polemics in order to understand that the Buddha rejected an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos and why.

tiltbillings wrote:

Cittasanto wrote: I am fond of precision BTW.

Your claim of precision seems to be exemplified by your claim of me that "you havn't shown anything regarding the term [atheism]", but as I have shown you, that was less than precise.

please read all of what I say instead of snipping qualifying terms to suit.

tilt wrote:It all depends upon how one opts to use the words and in what contexts. You are the one who keeps going on about narrow and broad definitions, which are, of course, legitimate ways of approaching an issue. If one uses a narrow definition, that is the context and the basis for what is said, and it is a legitimate in that way. Why would that be a problem? One does not necessarily rule out the other.

yes, if someone of no religion says they are a atheist they mean all gods
if someone of a religion says you are a atheist they are referring to their gods (and has a derogatory sense)
if someone of a religion says they are a atheist christian they are referring to the named religion.
as an example of the latter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

And given that one can reasonably talk about Buddhist atheism.

and given that you can reasonably talk & understand the meaning about it in the way Stephen Batchelor is applying it... which follows its application in other religions, I do not comprehend from any stand point why it means what you claim it to.

and given that you can reasonably talk & understand the meaning about it in the way Stephen Batchelor is applying it... which follows its application in other religions, I do not comprehend from any stand point why it means what you claim it to.

This "sentence" of yours is so gammatically confused, I am not sure what you are tying to say here.

But if you are trying to say that I am doing what Batchelor is doing, you are patently wrong. I can see that you, indeed, do not understand what I am doing, but given that we have gone around all of this repeatedly in the same circle, I would say that going around the same circle is likely to continue to be the case.

tiltbillings wrote:

and given that you can reasonably talk & understand the meaning about it in the way Stephen Batchelor is applying it... which follows its application in other religions, I do not comprehend from any stand point why it means what you claim it to.

This "sentence" of yours is so gammatically confused, I am not sure what you are tying to say here.

But if you are trying to say that I am doing what Batchelor is doing, you are patently wrong. I can see that you, indeed, do not understand what I am doing, but given that we have gone around all of this repeatedly in the same circle, I would say that going around the same circle is likely to continue to be the case.

you say this quite allot in a rude way, but as you have willfully misrepresented me in the past, and clearly have a problem with reading what I am saying (I am fond of precision btw) This claim and any future claims will be ignored in an appropriate manner.

Stephen Batchelor, and the like, use Buddhist atheism in a way that christian atheists use the term; the application has a history!

so where you are coming up with the limited use to refer to an outside religion, a use which is already a tenet within Buddhism so no extra definition is needed in that regard, and as a you showed there is an equivalent to the term atheism within the prakrit languages, which the Buddha and early disciples never had a need to apply to the Dhamma-vinaya I do not understand how you are coming to the conclusion that it is an appropriate term as a description (which I am now trying to understand).

To me it seams like the claim that the Buddha teaches in-action, and in a way he does, but that isn't the whole story.

If you can not understand that don't bother replying!

Cittasanto wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

and given that you can reasonably talk & understand the meaning about it in the way Stephen Batchelor is applying it... which follows its application in other religions, I do not comprehend from any stand point why it means what you claim it to.

This "sentence" of yours is so gammatically confused, I am not sure what you are tying to say here.

But if you are trying to say that I am doing what Batchelor is doing, you are patently wrong. I can see that you, indeed, do not understand what I am doing, but given that we have gone around all of this repeatedly in the same circle, I would say that going around the same circle is likely to continue to be the case.

you say this quite allot in a rude way, but as you have willfully misrepresented me in the past, and clearly have a problem with reading what I am saying (I am fond of precision btw) This claim and any future claims will be ignored in an appropriate manner.

Being fond of precision is a good thing and good practice.

Stephen Batchelor, and the like, use Buddhist atheism in a way that christian atheists use the term; the application has a history!

As I said, I am not doing what Batchelor is doing. Is this supposed to be guilt by association?

so where you are coming up with the limited use to refer to an outside religion, a use which is already a tenet within Buddhism so no extra definition is needed in that regard, and as a you showed there is an equivalent to the term atheism within the prakrit languages, which the Buddha and early disciples never had a need to apply to the Dhamma-vinaya I do not understand how you are coming to the conclusion that it is an appropriate term.

The Hindu word I used was a later Sanskrit word, not prakrit, but if a later Sanskrit word is not appropriate, why would a considerably later English locution, non-theistic, be appropriate?

To me it seams like the claim that the Buddha teaches in-action, and in a way he does, but that isn't the whole story.

If you can not understand that don't bother replying!

What you are saying in the preceeding sentence is a bit cryptic. Precision is good and clarity is even better.

I will reply Later maybe tomorrow I am too tired to answer now unfortunately.

tiltbillings wrote:Being fond of precision is a good thing and good practice.

Yes, yet it is not claiming to be precise.

As I said, I am not doing what Batchelor is doing. Is this supposed to be guilt by association?

no, but the point was the application of atheism within a "religion," as you are using, has a history of use.

so where you are coming up with the limited use to refer to an outside religion, a use which is already a tenet within Buddhism so no extra definition is needed in that regard, and as a you showed there is an equivalent to the term atheism within the prakrit languages, which the Buddha and early disciples never had a need to apply to the Dhamma-vinaya I do not understand how you are coming to the conclusion that it is an appropriate term.

The Hindu word I used was a later Sanskrit word, not prakrit, but if a later Sanskrit word is not appropriate, why would a considerably later English locution, non-theistic, be appropriate?
Prakrit is a language family which sanskrit & pali are part.
There may well of been the term before this reference, or it may be more than just one word? I would be interested to know what word/s are used if you are aware!
however I do not know, nor find any identical pali term in the dictionary I have, there are schools known about within the canon who may well of been atheistic such as the Materialists; sceptics, and annihilists all could of had some form of atheistic teaching whether broad or narrow in meaning.
Non-theism as opposed to atheism is used as a umbrella term, there are non-theistic religions, such as the christian atheists, or some of them at least, and Unitarian Universalism - which isn't specifically atheistic or theistic in any sense of the word - would fall into the non-theistic umbrella, just as deists, or pandeists can. so because it doesn't exclude such interpretations, yet excludes the theistic centrality of god to the path it is a far more appropriate term, compared with Atheism which excludes gods entirely, as previously noted with the meaning and lack of use as an umbrella term, it is also only partly correct (only the narrow creator denial) that Buddhism is atheistic.
[EDIT= this would also be allong the lines of "samana" "materialists" "sceptics" & "annihalists" as umbrella terms, as not all areas of each individuals teachings would of been mutually compatible or the same.]

To me it seams like the claim that the Buddha teaches in-action, and in a way he does, but that isn't the whole story.

If you can not understand that don't bother replying!

What you are saying in the preceeding sentence is a bit cryptic. Precision is good and clarity is even better.[/quote]
There is a sutta (AN8.12 page 201 of the anothology of the AN by Bodhi & Nyanaponika & one which looks more complete on this page http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; second one down) where the BUddha is asked about the hearsay claim he teaches inaction, and he says there is a way that it could be said he teaches inaction, and a way it could be said he teaches action. to say he teaches inaction would be incorrect, and the same is true here, in a way it can be said that buddhism in atheistic yet also a way it could be called theistic, which was the initial "problem".
I am reminded of (I think in this thread) the short Q&A regarding use of god, god does not have to mean a being and can substitute for Dhamma for an individual understanding, yet, it is easily confusing for others who do not have the kind of being as a understanding.

Kamran wrote:Thanks for the link cooran.

Instead if refuting the existence of gods, the Buddha was teaching people not to believe in or follow any god. Seems to have simular objectives as atheism.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."

no atheism states the gods dont exist if the Buddha was trying to be atheist he would of stated their are NO GODS,instead he acknowledged the existance of gods and stated they were stuck in samsarasan and lowly beings.

also if one wants to compare the Buddha then he would be compared to the idea of the mono god for the Buddha is ALL KNOWING,ALL LOVING,ALL SEEING,PERMENENT,and IS enlightenement,the cosmos as Tiltbilt is refering to is impermanet and of mara,ENlightenemnt is of Buddha and is Buddha.
so yes the Buddha couyld be compared to being the owner or creator of the ACTUAL EXISTANCE=Enlightenement(none mara cosmos)

also sir impermanence/and dependenty origination has for its cause and root IGNORANCE which is one of the poisons which the Buddha doesnt have.=Permenance.

there is no such thing as atheism in Buddhist suttas,people are simply lying to themselves.

Both Buddhism and Atheism are trying to convince people to stop following any god, and not to rely on any god for their salvation.

They do this using different methods (one says gods don't exist, while the other says gods are worthless), but both seem to have the same end result in mind - breaking peoples dependency on god.

I don't think that is true. At least Buddhism recognizes moral principles and understands that there are better and worse ways to live your life. Many (not all) atheists are also nihilistic, they believe there is no moral code, that the Universe is meaningless, and that there is no reason for existence. The Buddha also criticized these views.

Nyanoponika Thera wrote:Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana.

As much as I admire the late Ven Nyanaponika, K.N. Jayatilleke, PhD, offers a bit of a different take on the questions raised in the above quote:

Buddhist Atheism
While Buddhism is atheistic, we must not forget that Buddhist atheism has at the same time to
be distinguished from materialistic atheism. Buddhism asserted the falsity of a materialistic
philosophy which denied survival, recompense and responsibility as well as moral and spiritual
values and obligations, no less than certain forms of theistic beliefs. In its thoroughly objective
search for truth it was prepared to accept what was true and good in “the personal immortality
view” (bhavadiṭṭhi) of theism as well as “the annihilationist view” (vibhavadiṭṭhi) of atheistic
materialism: “Those thinkers who do not see how these two views arise and cease to be, their
good points as well as their defects and how one transcends them in accordance with the truth
are under the grip of greed, hate and ignorance … and will not attain final deliverance.” (MN
11.7/M I 65).

See the essay "The Buddhist Attitude to God" in the excellent essay collection: http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh162.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the Buddhist attitude towards other religions, see: K. N. Jayatilleke "Buddhist Attitude To Other Religions"

The Christian god is probably the Great Brahma.

I think this whole post is nonesense,the topic of subject is did the Buddha beleive in god.

their are many gods in buddism so yes the Buddha beleived in god he also beleived in many gods,he even stated to be the teacher of all gods.

and the whole argument about it only pretaining to the monotheist idea of god is pure nonsense since the Buddha fits almost every single trait of the mono idea of god.

all loving,all knowing,all seeing,the owner and creator of the TRUE reality(not this fake mara cosmos)Permenant.the mono idea of god is the Buddha(minus the all powerful,for being all powerful is a contradiction to being all loving)

It seems like people want to add in atheism to buddhism and sorry it doesnt exist,just like they tried adding in nhilism and no afterlife,that nonsense isnt in Buddhism either.oh and did you know the Buddha was just a man?nope the Buddha sure didnt walk on water or fly to the moon or take 7 steps when he was born anmd speak,yea no supernatural aspects in Buddhism.yea they tried to take that out also,pretty soon they willl start editing our holy texts to meet atheist nhilist standards.

seriously if anyone here wants to be and atheist materalist nhilst then by all means go ahead.But dont label Buddhism as being such cause you wont find Buddhist suttas to support you,and please have enough respect to not "make up" your own form of Buddhism.

Peace and Love