tiltbillings wrote:Which makes my point. It depends upon how one defines the term atheism.
Which I have clearly done.
tiltbillings wrote:One can say that Buddhism is non-theistic, but that fails to get at the fact that a the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos has been rejected by the Buddha onwards.
Again, pointing out that atheism is incompatible with Buddhism doesn't entail equating Buddhism with any form of theism.
tiltbillings wrote:Which makes my point. It depends upon how one defines the term atheism.
Which I have clearly done.
You have give a defintion, but one can offer variations of what atheism means.
tiltbillings wrote:One can say that Buddhism is non-theistic, but that fails to get at the fact that a the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos has been rejected by the Buddha onwards.
Again, pointing out that atheism is incompatible with Buddhism doesn't entail equating Buddhism with any form of theism.
I am not arguing that point; rather, I am arguing with the idea that one definition is inclusive of all definitions. Inasmuch as the Buddha has pointedly rejected an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos it is atheistic, but that does not necessarily entail all the other attachments that have been applied by others to that word.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:Inasmuch as the Buddhism has pointedly rejected an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos it is atheistic....
The Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.
tiltbillings wrote:...but that does not necessarily entail all the other attachments that have been applied by others to that word.
Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?
Last edited by Nyana on Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
tiltbillings wrote:Inasmuch as the Buddhism has pointedly rejected an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos it is atheistic....
The Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.
Depend up[on how you define the term atheist.
tiltbillings wrote:...but that does not necessarily entail all the other attachments that have been applied by others to that word.
Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?
That has already been done above. If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem. Whatever the case, the Buddha's teachings are always going require some discussion of what is and what is not entailed concening the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?
That has already been done above.
No it hasn't. Show me a quotation from a philosophy text of a definition of atheism which affirms the existence of gods and higher realms.
tiltbillings wrote:If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem.
As already shown, this is an overly restrictive definition of the term.
Ñāṇa wrote:Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?
The a- negates, it doesn't affirm, in this case it negates theism. One could equally say show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of icecream, both make no sense.
Pronouns (no self / not self) “Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Ñāṇa wrote:The Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms.
And he demoted them from higher powers worthy of worship to beings like you and me trapped in samsaric realms.
Pronouns (no self / not self) “Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Ñāṇa wrote:The term was chosen for a reason. Buddhism is not compatible with atheism.
It's not compatible with militant athiesm, I'll concede that, it's equally not compatible with militant theism.
Pronouns (no self / not self) “Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Ñāṇa wrote:BTW, I'm not interested in feeding trolls.
Actually you introduced the topic of terrorism, something that didn't do the point you are trying to discuss any favours.
Pronouns (no self / not self) “Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Goofaholix wrote:The a- negates, it doesn't affirm, in this case it negates theism. One could equally say show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of icecream, both make no sense.
Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.
Show me a definition of atheism that affirms the existence of gods and higher realms?
That has already been done above.
No it hasn't. Show me a quotation from a philosophy text of a definition of atheism which affirms the existence of gods and higher realms.
Yes it has, and I would refer you to Arvind Sharma's THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, pub Oxford, 1995, pages 25, 34, and 74.
tiltbillings wrote:If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem.
As already shown, this is an overly restrictive definition of the term.
Not at all.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:No it hasn't. Show me a quotation from a philosophy text of a definition of atheism which affirms the existence of gods and higher realms.
Yes it has, and I would refer you to Arvind Sharma's THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, pub Oxford, 1995, pages 25, 34, and 74.
You'll have to provide a quotation. I don't have the text.
tiltbillings wrote:If one limits the definition of atheism to simply, and not unreasonably, to a rejection of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, no problem.
As already shown, this is an overly restrictive definition of the term.
Goofaholix wrote:And he demoted them from higher powers worthy of worship to beings like you and me trapped in samsaric realms.
Yes, I don't really understand what appears to be an intentional conflation of the common Western idea of "God" and the Buddhist understanding of "deva", which there is good reason to distinguish.
The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.
Continuing to insist upon framing it in this way ignores a number of real-world subtleties and isn't productive.
Ñāṇa wrote:Again, the Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms. He was the teacher of gods and men. The Pāli canon contains many assertions regarding the existence of gods, higher realms, past lives, and rebirth in the next world. Contrary to the opinion of Stephen Batchelor, et al, the Buddha was neither an atheist, an apatheist, nor an agnostic.
... and he demoted them from higher powers worthy of worship to beings like you and me trapped in samsaric realms. He also affirmed the existence of cows and water buffaloes and never suggested we worship these either.
Pronouns (no self / not self) “Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Kenshou wrote:
The thread would be less argument-prone and to the point if it said something like "denial of devas and deva-realms is a false dhamma", or something.
I was hoping for it to be more along the lines of a discussion of the proposition: