Cittasanto wrote:However I do believe I have found a compromise, and one I was unaware of/forgotten about & not known it being used in regard to Buddhism
I have no problem with that, except you would need a book to explain what it means, but, oh, look, it has already been done: BUDDHISM: A Non-Theistic Religion by Helmuth Von Glasenapp
, a very good work, worth reading.
Pema seamed to do a good job in less.
although I don't know of the trustworthyness of the link you give (not in terms of viruses...) so I wont be reading that doc sorry.
its benefit is that it does away with one aspect of theism (namely the connotations of theology which not all theistic religions have in the way christianity does) and doesn't sugest that there are no gods in Buddhism,
Non-theistic, especially the way you have been using the word god(s), certainly does suggest there are no gods at all in Buddhism. The locution Buddhist atheism
, on the other hand speaks to the issue that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in Buddhism. It says nothing about the mortal "gods."[/quote]
how have I been using it?
I have been refering to a being, so I do not see how I have used it is such a way that would negate them.
although Atheism as in the linited scope (i think the third or fourth) explanation you give earlier would be a polytheist, polydeist, agnostic, i.e they either believe in multiple or don't give a thought to it. I believe one would be hard pushed to find an atheist who would acually believe in multiple gods and not the monotheistic model.
although I remember in one of Venerable Analayos lectures (first intake) he mentions how the refutation doesn't refute a deistic, or pan-deistic god although that being would probably fall in the creator god category talked about a few posts back, not really payed more attention to it other than enough to spring to mind.
and as the wiki article quotes Pema Chödrön
The difference between theism and nontheism is not whether one does or does not believe in God.[...] Theism is a deep-seated conviction that there's some hand to hold [...] Non-theism is relaxing with the ambiguity and uncertainty of the present moment without reaching for anything to protect ourselves [...] Nontheism is finally realizing there is no babysitter you can count on.
The problem with this, however, is that in Indian Buddhism the idea of a creator god was beat up and rejected quite strongly. The mortal "gods" were pretty much left alone.
although they weren't regarded as a support or refuge.
there are references to appeasing the gods through offerings (one in another thread live at the moment) and I have mentioned a few times in the past the Karaniya metta sutta being an example through the origin story, but then it isn't a strong suggestion by any stretch.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill