Cittasanto wrote: . . .
what understanding of theism or Buddhism do you see me as expounding here, as I do not believe I am making any point on theism or Buddhism there specifically; rather responding to someones post with certain things which added to what they said through the context of this thread.
The point you are making here is that you seem to think that some people act in a certain way as a result conflating and misunderstanding things related to theism and the Buddha's teachings. I am simply pointing out that for me, and I am sure others, that I do not fall into the pit of misunderstanding you are bemoaning.
I am hardly bemoaning.
well we could use the derived english word daemon? which is etimalogically related I believe via the latin. but god is easily recognizable.
And "god" is just as, if not considerably moreso, problematic as you claim the word "atheism" is.
I see a fun experiment.
explain why gods are in the canon from an atheist perspective.
and as is only fair I shall do so from a theistic perspective.
here is mine, please feel free to challange it from an Atheistic perspective and I shall do the same for your offering.
Code: Select all
There are gods in Buddhism, however they are seen in a particular light, not as a immortal monotheistic God, as in Buddhism there is cause and effect and no first cause can be discerned and pondering this is a distraction to the actual practice, rather as a type of being in the rounds of rebirth, who enjoy certain pleasures, and when they die they can be reborn in any of the other realms based upon their intentional actions. however belief in gods, the after life is not fully neccesary as one may or may not see the validity or reality of this in regard to practice as one develops a firm footing.
but to say that Buddhism is Atheistic I find misleading to a degree of deluding people, because of the words used in the canon do not described them in a metaphorical sense.
You may find it that way, but calling the Buddha's teaching atheistic would be less problematic than calling it theistic. Either way, which is the point, one would have to offer some degree of explanation as to how the terms are used. Given that atheism
is a word directed at -- and most commonly understood in terms of -- the idea of a singular omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos, which is something the Buddha had a few things to say, atheism as a descriptive term, but not without qualifications, is appropriate.[/quote]
same could be said with the use of theism or the use of neither.
although I know a few atheists and they would certainly not accept any god, and understand the term to include all, not just one explanation, and are just as likely to doubt the pali canon and its use as they are to doubt the Hindu, Zoroastrian, Islamic, Christian, Wicca, and any other form. the sheer notion of a god, be it a creator or otherwise, is abhorrent to them.