Do Buddhist believe in god?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mpcahn
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:39 am
Location: Boulder, CO, USA

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by mpcahn » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:06 pm

This may help:
Achaan Chah asked a monk who was leaving if he was planning to teach when he got back to the West. No, he had no particular plans to teach Dharma, he replied, although if someone asked, he would do his best to explain how to practice.

"Very good," Achaan Chah said, "it is beneficial to speak about the Dharma to those who inquire. And when you explain it," he went on, "why not call it Christianity. They won't understand in the West if you say anything about Buddha.

"I speak of God to Christians, yet I have not read their books. I find God in the heart. Do you think God is Santa Claus, who comes once a year with gifts for children? God is Dharma, the truth; the one who sees this sees all things. And yet God is nothing special - just this.

"What we are really teaching is how to be free from suffering, how to be loving and wise and filled with compassion. This teaching is the Dharma, anywhere in any language. So call it Christianity. Then it will be easier for some of them to understand."

Achaan Chah had this advice for an aspiring Dharma teacher:
"Don't let them scare you. Be firm and direct. Be clear about your own shortcomings, and acknowledge your limits. Work with love and compassion, and when people are beyond your ability to help, develop equanimity. Sometimes teaching is hard work. Teachers become garbage cans for people's frustrations and problems. The more people you teach, the bigger the garbage disposal problem. Don't worry. Teaching is a wonderful way to practice Dharma. The Dharma can help all those who genuinely apply it in their lives. Those who teach grow in patience and understanding."

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn ... t_Pool.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
is the mind us? Is it ours? Slash on down! Whatever is going to be destroyed, let it be destroyed. We feel no regrets. We want only the truth. (Ajahn Maha Boowa)

User avatar
Wesley1982
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Wesley1982 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:13 pm

It sounds alot like the Creationism vs Evolution controversy :juggling:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11776
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by DNS » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:58 pm

Wesley1982 wrote:It sounds alot like the Creationism vs Evolution controversy :juggling:
Except that I can see why there is some diverging opinions on what to call Buddhism, but in regard to creationism vs. evolution it is much more simple: some cling to mythology and some prefer to look at the mountain of evidence in support of evolution. Here is the sum total of arguments that evolution is a hoax:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific ... ing_a_hoax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:32 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
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.
well I have used Theism initially as it is also an umbrella term for the different varying beliefs about god/s, i.e. its broadest meaning is a belief in at least one god, so I would not call it either poly or mono-theistic, although poly does have more advantages as a term for descriptive purposes due to the implication of the immortality it could only be used in explaining later.
Atheistic does not apply due to the illiberality of the beings in the canon, as noted in the OP, and its strictest meaning an affirmation that there is no monotheistic god does not mean that they would accept after evaluation polytheistic views, it is just an affirmation against the cultural backdrop view which allot of people who call themselves atheists are within. Although this literal depiction does not discount applying the lessons for anyone.
I did initially consider deistic although as this still implies the first cause i find it a tricky term, although as noted earlier Ven Analayo does note the refutation does not necessarily apply to the deistic conception, although I would suspect it would fall in one of the categories of gods listed in the hierarchy, doesn't mean that it does, only that the beginning point, whether deistic or otherwise is not knowable.

non-theistic "approach" (with the qualifier) seams to fit best, as it is not discounting the literalistic stance the canon takes on gods within the text like atheism (and thus causing more problems than it is worth) and most importantly regarding the theistic view removes the centrality of the gods (which is a similar problem with the term theology when talking about Buddhist studies). with my initial support for theism being based on the umbrella term rather than any specific theoretical views implied.
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

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11776
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by DNS » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Theism just doesn't sound right at all. Imagine a monk saying, "I'm going to Nalanda University to get my doctorate." Another person, "what degree program"? Monk: "I going for a Doctor of Theology degree."

Or how about Buddhist Theological Society?

User avatar
Wesley1982
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Wesley1982 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:43 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Wesley1982 wrote:It sounds alot like the Creationism vs Evolution controversy :juggling:
Except that I can see why there is some diverging opinions on what to call Buddhism, but in regard to creationism vs. evolution it is much more simple: some cling to mythology and some prefer to look at the mountain of evidence in support of evolution. Here is the sum total of arguments that evolution is a hoax:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific ... ing_a_hoax" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like the search for Bigfoot the Giant Ape Man?..

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:15 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:Theism just doesn't sound right at all. Imagine a monk saying, "I'm going to Nalanda University to get my doctorate." Another person, "what degree program"? Monk: "I going for a Doctor of Theology degree."

Or how about Buddhist Theological Society?
Thats why it is common to see Buddhist Studies or Buddhology as courses regarding Buddhism :)
although there is or has been debate whether to limit the term theology to christianity so another religion would get a doctorite with a more appropriate/precise name.
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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:04 am

Cittasanto wrote:
non-theistic "approach" (with the qualifier) seams to fit best,
It would seem to be not necessarily the best locution. Non-theistic seems to strongly imply no gods of any sort whatsoever. But it more than seems that there are god like beings throughout the suttas not to mention the Buddha directly addressing the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos , so it would seem the need for a "qualifier" would be rather extensive to make sense out of the idea of Buddhism being non-theistic.

Since atheism is most commonly understood as being directed at the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, and since this is directly addressed in the suttas by the Buddha, one could reasonably talk about Buddhist atheism, and, of course, as part of that discussion of Buddhist atheism the god like beings that play a role within the suttas also get discussed and are shown to seamlessly, it would seem, to fit into the Buddhist view as being mortal, kamma bound beings. Either way, a fair amount of quilfication is required.
>> 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

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:38 am

Since atheism is most commonly understood as being directed at the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, and since this is directly addressed in the suttas by the Buddha, one could reasonably talk about Buddhist atheism, and, of course, as part of that discussion of Buddhist atheism the god like beings that play a role within the suttas also get discussed and are shown to seamlessly, it would seem, to fit into the Buddhist view as being mortal, kamma bound beings. Either way, a fair amount of quilfication is required.
you find a atheist who acepts a polytheistic model and you win!

doing the work for you
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 118AArZxeO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

{Edit = my favorite so far
Atheists, by definition, would reject those concepts; even god concepts that are compatible with a basic definition of atheism, like pantheism. The rebuttal you'll most likely hear is that the re-definition of God is tautological. There is merit to that argument.

HOWEVER, there is a sub-set of atheism, called ignosticism(not to be confused with agnosticism) which would allow for the acknowledgement of certain God concepts that are logically consistent by definition. That is not to say an ignostic, such as myself, would start believing in God, only that we would acknowledge that the concept as defined is a valid one.
}

Atheism is the lack of a belief in at least one god, that is if they accepted any god notion and do not lack belief therein they would not be an atheist!
Deva does in fact mean god.
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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:26 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Since atheism is most commonly understood as being directed at the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, and since this is directly addressed in the suttas by the Buddha, one could reasonably talk about Buddhist atheism, and, of course, as part of that discussion of Buddhist atheism the god like beings that play a role within the suttas also get discussed and are shown to seamlessly, it would seem, to fit into the Buddhist view as being mortal, kamma bound beings. Either way, a fair amount of qualification is required.
you find a atheist who acepts a polytheistic model and you win!
First of all, I am not in this to win or lose. I do my best not to think in those terms. Secondly, after reading the above missive, I got up to let in the dog, catching a glimpse of myself in the mirror, oh look!: An atheist who accepts the Buddhist polytheistic model. Also, see: #4 http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p196024" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; And not to mention this from the link in the same msg: "Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[25] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection." And one thing that becomes quite clear, there is no simple definition of atheism. Still true today: "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911. "The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist." --

As for non-theism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but given that the Buddha did, in fact, directly address the question of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, that pushes the issue in a direction of atheism and more specifically, Buddhist atheism.
doing the work for you
Why thank you. The response, for the most part makes a point about a not very carefully defined understanding of the question at hand, though I agree, this answer is of interest:
Atheists, by definition, would reject those concepts; even god concepts that are compatible with a basic definition of atheism, like pantheism. The rebuttal you'll most likely hear is that the re-definition of God is tautological. There is merit to that argument.

HOWEVER, there is a sub-set of atheism, called ignosticism(not to be confused with agnosticism) which would allow for the acknowledgement of certain God concepts that are logically consistent by definition. That is not to say an ignostic, such as myself, would start believing in God, only that we would acknowledge that the concept as defined is a valid one.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in at least one god, that is if they accepted any god notion and do not lack belief therein they would not be an atheist!
But as we have seen, that is not a universal or set in stone definition.
Deva does in fact mean god.
But the real question is, what does it mean within a Buddhist context, especially in contrast to what the Buddha explicitly rejected: the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the 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

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:47 am

tiltbillings wrote:First of all, I am not in this to win or lose. I do my best not to think in those terms. Secondly, after reading the above missive, I got up to let in the dog, catching a glimpse of myself in the mirror, oh look!: An atheist who accepts the Buddhist polytheistic model.
then your a Buddhist, no need to add atheism at all.
I happen to not believe in mono or polytheistic gods in the regular definition of god/s, but do accept the Buddhist model even though I have no proof, other than the texts.
one could say hindu atheism, christian atheism or deism atheism based upon their lack of acceptance of another model, but none of them are actual atheistic beliefs.

Some Buddhists may be Atheists, i.e. they lack a belief, there is a non-acceptance of the Buddhist model of gods
As for non-theism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but given that the Buddha did, in fact, directly address the question of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, that pushes the issue in a direction of atheism and more specifically, Buddhist atheism.
Hence the use of the qualifier - Buddhism is a non-theirstic approach.
there is one thing I am seeing in Buddhist Atheism now, that it is actually naming the whole and too far, the gods are then completely denied, atheism when applied would reffer to the god or gods of the religion it is applied to also not only external to that religions gods
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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:59 am

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:First of all, I am not in this to win or lose. I do my best not to think in those terms. Secondly, after reading the above missive, I got up to let in the dog, catching a glimpse of myself in the mirror, oh look!: An atheist who accepts the Buddhist polytheistic model.
then your a Buddhist, no need to add atheism at all.
Of course atheism is appropriate when talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in the context of the Buddha's teaching and how the Buddha regarded such a claim.
one could say hindu atheism, christian atheism or deism atheism based upon their lack of acceptance of another model, but none of them are actual atheistic beliefs.
Certainly, and that is the point. There is no fixed, etched in carbon steel definition of atheism.
Some Buddhists may be Atheists, i.e. they lack a belief, there is a non-acceptance of the Buddhist model of gods
Sure, and some Buddhist may be atheists in regard to the rejection of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, but they may have no difficulty with the supposed gods being mortal, kamma bound beings.
As for non-theism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but given that the Buddha did, in fact, directly address the question of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, that pushes the issue in a direction of atheism and more specifically, Buddhist atheism.
Hence the use of the qualifier - Buddhism is a non-theirstic approach.
there is one thing I am seeing in Buddhist Atheism now, that it is actually naming the whole and too far, the gods are then completely denied, atheism when applied would reffer to the god or gods of the religion it is applied to also not only external to that religions gods
That is a problem you are having, but it is not a problem I am having. Buddhist atheism only denies the theistic claim of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, but it does not deny the claim there are mortal, kamma bound beings.
>> 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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:14 am

one could say hindu atheism, christian atheism or deism
One can:

Christian atheism

Hindu atheism

Christian deism
>> 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

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by Cittasanto » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:47 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:First of all, I am not in this to win or lose. I do my best not to think in those terms. Secondly, after reading the above missive, I got up to let in the dog, catching a glimpse of myself in the mirror, oh look!: An atheist who accepts the Buddhist polytheistic model.
then your a Buddhist, no need to add atheism at all.
Of course atheism is appropriate when talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in the context of the Buddha's teaching and how the Buddha regarded such a claim.
but not when talking about Buddhism.
and it is easier and more precise/less misleading to just state a monotheistic God is not accepted in Buddhism, rather than just stating buddhist atheism and then having to explain why gods are found in the canon. because one thing that was noticable in the Yahoo Answers question was the requirement of proof in many of the posts, and texts would not supply that proof, and to then call buddhism atheistic raises the question "where is this atheism considering all the supernatural beings?"
one could say hindu atheism, christian atheism or deism atheism based upon their lack of acceptance of another model, but none of them are actual atheistic beliefs.
Certainly, and that is the point. There is no fixed, etched in carbon steel definition of atheism.
Some Buddhists may be Atheists, i.e. they lack a belief, there is a non-acceptance of the Buddhist model of gods
Sure, and some Buddhist may be atheists in regard to the rejection of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, but they may have no difficulty with the supposed gods being mortal, kamma bound beings.
But none of them are actually atheistic Belief systems.
Accepting one god but denying another isn't actually atheistic by any definition I have seen, and even the strict narrow sense Ben showed from the Oxford Dictionaty doesn't give that type of definition and an earlier edition
From the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. 1989
Atheist:
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
and you can get more here http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and the etymology
Atheist from a- "without" + theos "a god" http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(might ask that on YA :-) quite enjoyed reading the responses.)
As for non-theism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but given that the Buddha did, in fact, directly address the question of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, that pushes the issue in a direction of atheism and more specifically, Buddhist atheism.
Hence the use of the qualifier - Buddhism is a non-theirstic approach.
there is one thing I am seeing in Buddhist Atheism now, that it is actually naming the whole and too far, the gods are then completely denied, atheism when applied would reffer to the god or gods of the religion it is applied to also not only external to that religions gods
That is a problem you are having, but it is not a problem I am having. Buddhist atheism only denies the theistic claim of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, but it does not deny the claim there are mortal, kamma bound beings.[/quote]
Sorry the problem you are having is the fact that Buddhism isn't actually atheistic, because of the Gods found within the canon, whether they are subject to rebirth or not they are gods. I say this because the Buddha didn't call a butcher a potter, i.e. he called thing what they were, & said what he meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do Buddhist believe in god?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:44 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Of course atheism is appropriate when talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in the context of the Buddha's teaching and how the Buddha regarded such a claim.
but not when talking about Buddhism.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but other opinions carry as much, if not more, weight than does yours. What atheism means, as has been clearly shown, is not set in stone and certainly has a fair degree of plasticity.
and it is easier and more precise/less misleading to just state a monotheistic God is not accepted in Buddhism, rather than just stating buddhist atheism and then having to explain why gods are found in the canon. because one thing that was noticable in the Yahoo Answers question was the requirement of proof in many of the posts, and texts would not supply that proof, and to then call buddhism atheistic raises the question "where is this atheism considering all the supernatural beings?"
Yahoo Answers. Yes, well, there is a source of high quality thinking. The issue is not a matter of trying to prove that what the Buddhist texts say is somehow objectively true; rather, the point is: here is what the Buddha taught. If people want to believe or not believe, that is their business.
Accepting one god but denying another isn't actually atheistic by any definition I have seen
Then obviously you have not been paying any attention, or you are simply and willfully, ignoring that which is contrary how you think we should all think about the Buddha's teachings.
Sorry the problem you are having is the fact that Buddhism isn't actually atheistic, because of the Gods found within the canon, whether they are subject to rebirth or not they are gods. I say this because the Buddha didn't call a butcher a potter, i.e. he called thing what they were, & said what he meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't have a problem with how the Buddha taught his Dhamma. The "gods" within the suttas are certainly not what they were in the Brahmanical texts/teachings from whence they came. The Buddha directly rejected an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, which is essentially a theological statement, putting the Buddha's teachings in that context of talking about agent driven creation in an atheist context, and the gods, while having been retained by the Buddha, have been severely demoted, subsumed, and markedly subordinated by the Buddha's teachings, putting the Buddha in a superior position. You can call the devas in the suttas gods if you want, but they are very limited, at best figurehead gods, and they are, indeed, markedly different from how the Hindus view them. While the gods in general have not been rejected as has the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, they have been subsumed and subordinated, leaving them with no actual significance or power in terms of the core of the Buddha's teachings, and all of this is what gives the unique characteristics to Buddhist atheism.

You don't have to call it Buddhist atheism, but others who may opt to are no less justified in their opinion than are you in yours.
>> 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, Baidu [Spider] and 92 guests