Buddhism: Religious Atheism

[Chili]

Inevitably, whining about ad hominems and personal attacks serves no practical purpose but to evade challenges and deflect the discussion, so normally I let them slide by when I see them ... unless they become the dominant feature of a person's arguments.

Good point, it is wrong to be offended by them.

[Mountain Man]

Good point, it is wrong to be offended by them.The point is that an ad hominem only shows the person never had a rational base for their argument anyway. They have to attack the person because they have nothing left. You can see that in those that do nothing but attack others. They always start with a personal attack and them ask inane questions that are not worth the bother to be answered. Instead of feeding their sillyness, I'm just going to ignore them and deal with those that want to have an intelligent, mature, conversation.

[Azygos]

The article The Buddhist Attitude to God (http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm) describes clearly the Buddhist attitude to God.

Here is a quote from Nagarjuna (who is in Mahayana Buddhism probably the second after the Buddha in historical importance):

->> Those gods are impermanent, dont rely on them.......it doesnt say those god stations dont exist..........like the god "indra" is not an entity but a position which can be occupied by a noble man who incarnates as a god......it will not give any freedom to be born as a god.....thus in the brhadaranyak upanishad, it clearly states "let there be freedom from the slavery of gods, by realizing the truth of truths, for the knower of brahman becomes brahman itself, and gets freed from the slavery of gods." So what nagarjuna states here , is a reiteration of the upanishads, and nothing very original

[Purna]

in the brhadaranyak upanishad, it clearly states "let there be freedom from the slavery of gods, by realizing the truth of truths, for the knower of brahman becomes brahman itself, and gets freed from the slavery of gods."

So on a thread about the relation between Buddhism and Atheism the discussion is now about Hinduism and about one of the posters persecution complex problem (Edited by Grizzly) .....

[Philippe*]

Plenty of buddhists believe in gods as entities living in other spheres of existence, as humans and animals live in this world. But there are entities among others in Samsara. Most of them don't pray them, they are not gods such as Jehovah.

Boddhisattvas and buddhas can be prayed to receive their boons but they are not gods, and deities of meditation can be seen as real by some folks and as symbols by the advanced practioners and most of buddhist westerners. For example Mahakala is said to be a real entity by some tibetan buddhist monks while Avalokiteshvara/Tchenrezi can be seen just as an aspect of the awakened mind, it depends on people.

Buddhism is not theistic, but more agnostic, Buddha was not concerned with Ishwara/God. Be that as it may, theists, agnostic and atheists can be buddhists but most of them are agnostics, strong or weak atheists technically speaking.

Philippe

[Azygos]

So on a thread about the relation between Buddhism and Atheism the discussion is now about Hinduism and about one of the posters persecution complex problem <edit> .....

->> All i said was, that these ideas came to buddhism via the upanishads........for i see the original buddhist message to be a New interpretation of the upanishads, and nothing more

[Azygos]

[QUOTE=Anatta].
Tibetan Buddhism (which forms about 6% of Buddhism) does use very different methods compared to other forms of Buddhism and might appear to some as more like Hinduism than Buddhism. But that is because Tibetan Buddhism uses lots of symbols.

->> The gods are symbols in Hinduism too.........but the entire universe is a symbolism of name and form (nama rupa).....without name and form everything becomes illusory

->> Hinduism states that the gods exist somewhere within our consciousness, for the entire universe is within our consciousness

->> If tibetans dont believe in gods and reincarnation, why do they consider all life sacred including that of worms......they are not very different from the jains in the latter aspect

[Purna]

->> All i said was, that these ideas came to buddhism via the upanishads........for i see the original buddhist message to be a New interpretation of the upanishads, and nothing more

Buddha clearly rejected the Vedas and the Hinduist claim that he was a reincarnation of Vishnu.
Buddhism being a "new interpretation of upanishads" is a Hinduist view, having nothing to do with Buddhism.

[aupmanyav]

I guess an indifferent God is perfectly compatible with suffering.

Of course, 'Brahman' is attributeless, so It would not interfere.

[Azygos]

Buddha clearly rejected the Vedas and the Hinduist claim that he was a reincarnation of Vishnu.
Buddhism being a "new interpretation of upanishads" is a Hinduist view, having nothing to do with Buddhism.

->> Buddha rejected the karma kanda, and what he rejected stands rejected till date [except the tantriks, karma kanda is virtually dead today....]......Of course, the two most significant differences are about atman, and the nature of brahman as sat-chit-anandam.........

[premjan]

There are plenty of Hindus who are still ritualistic and do various special (fire) sacrifices etc. For instance quite common among south Indian Brahmins. I suppose this is what you mean by "karma kanda". Maybe not so common in North India.

[Mountain Man]

Plenty of buddhists believe in gods as entities living in other spheres of existence...I got attacked for saying the same thing.Buddhism is not theistic...That's a blanket statement that I cannot agree with. Some brands of Buddhism claim to not believe in gods, while other brands do. Saying that "Buddhism is not theistic" is the same thing as saying "Christianity is not theistic." I am sure there are some christians somewhere that do not believe in the gods of that religion. That does not make the whole religion atheistic.

[Philippe*]

I got attacked for saying the same thing.That's a blanket statement that I cannot agree with. Some brands of Buddhism claim to not believe in gods, while other brands do. Saying that "Buddhism is not theistic" is the same thing as saying "Christianity is not theistic." I am sure there are some christians somewhere that do not believe in the gods of that religion. That does not make the whole religion atheistic.

Well, it depends on what we put behind this word I think. Everybody should explain the meaning of the word maybe it would avoid misunderstanding. It is not the same thing than saying christianity is not theistic, since almost all christians believe in a god and this god is viewed as the creative source of man and the world and he transcends them, which is not the case in buddhism where "gods" aka devas are only entities of the *same nature*, i.e. Buddha nature, than humans or animals.

Let's have a look at Merriam Webster online with the notion of gods according to buddhisms in mind and "a pen in the hand" :

Theism:
belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

God:
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

I admit the fourth point can be discussed to some extent.

Philippe

[Azygos]

There are plenty of Hindus who are still ritualistic and do various special (fire) sacrifices etc. For instance quite common among south Indian Brahmins. I suppose this is what you mean by "karma kanda". Maybe not so common in North India.

->> Karma kanda deals with ritualistic part of the vedas........fire sacrifices do exist, but no more of animal sacrifices, of any kind.........and they are no more considered as important.............

[fatpie42]

Whether Buddhist gods are an authoritative revelation of reality, or the ground-source of a reality "more real" than everyday reality, was a question that came up. Are they supernatural beings or mind-manifestations?.

In my recent research on the topic of non-realism the reactions against it noted a difference between naive realism and critical realism. The fundamentalists in America are mostly naive realists, but most academic theologians are critical realists. They would call God a supernatural being or ultimate reality, but they don't think of God as just another thing in the world or as a 'person' (though God is 'personal').

But "superhuman being" works well-enough for this discussion.

Only if you are ignoring critical realists.


True enough, in Tibet there are loads of Buddhists that pray to gods. Now, the important question (again) ... so what? What conclusion about Buddhism, or about how to make religions more benign, should be drawn from that? That Buddhism is a dogmatic theistic religion like any other and therefore not a candidate for replacing less tolerant religions? and therefore all religions should be eradicated rather than nice-ified?


I don't know what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming that Buddhism is a 'better' religion? Why would you say that? Are you a buddhist yourself? (you must realise that I need to know whether there is a bias here)


I'm not arguing about which Buddhists know best, and am not questioning anyone's integrity. I'm saying over-broad understandings of any religion are always misunderstandings, and Buddhism is not theistic due to some theists that are Buddhists.


Pretty much ALL mahayana buddhists is not just 'some' buddhists. It is nearly every Tibetan buddhist.

[abaddon]

...Only if you are ignoring critical realists.

In deciding whether Buddhism is inherently theistic or not, I don't consider fine distinctions between types of god to be critical. If people want to discuss the viewpoints some or many or all Buddhists hold regarding the nature of gods, then defining "gods" becomes an interesting question. But I was concerned only with "Is Buddhism inherently a god-based ("theistic") religion?" To answer that question, what matters foremost is this question: "Do core Buddhist doctrines rely on superhuman beings (as their source, as their justification, as their purpose, etc.)?" The answer to that is, "No they do not." Buddhism is therefore not a god-based religion like Christianity is.

To say that some Buddhists pray to god(s) and therefore the entirety of the religion is theistic is ass-backwards logic. The exceptions (to the core tenets) do not define the whole thing. Some or even "many" praying Buddhists do not make Buddhism theistic any more than the existence of atheistic Christians makes Christianity an atheist religion -- even if they were a sizable percent, it doesn't change the nature of Christian doctrines and practices, it doesn't change the main thing that Christianity is about.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Are you claiming that Buddhism is a 'better' religion? Why would you say that? Are you a buddhist yourself? (you must realise that I need to know whether there is a bias here).

I was worried that people had forgotten the OP and so would be confused by that part of my post. So I'll clarify it:

True enough, in Tibet there are loads of Buddhists that pray to gods. Now, the important question (again) ... so what?

Here, the point is that exceptions don't make the rule. We got lost into what Tibetans do when the original question in the Opening Post (OP) was whether religions that don't have a dictatorial god aren't more tolerant religions.

What conclusion about Buddhism, or about how to make religions more benign, should be drawn from that?

Here, I was not trying to say Buddhism is a better religion than others, but (again) I was trying to redirect the discussion back to the OP's point, where Buddhism was offered as an example of a more tolerant religion than the Abrahamic religions and therefore somehow, through education in comparative religions, a possible stepping stone to a more benign world. Refer back to the opening post if you don't remember it.

Pretty much ALL mahayana buddhists is not just 'some' buddhists. It is nearly every Tibetan buddhist.

That's a horrid bit of logic there. You've taken a relatively small group (Mahayana Buddhists) from within a vastly larger group (all Buddhists), and suggest that counting up an even smaller group yet (Tibetan Buddhists) amounts to significant numbers. I have to ask the question again: So what? Are you saying some, many, or even "nearly every Tibetan Buddhist" makes all of the Buddhist religion a god-based religion?

Quote us some figures with references if you want to make an argument by numbers. Someone else has estimated Tibetan Buddhists are about 6 percent of Buddhists. In logic, there's an important distinction between "none," "some" and "all." That's the context in which I chose the word "some," and in that context both "6 percent" and "nearly every" are equivalent to "some."

There's really nothing I wanted to say in this argument that isn't said more completely and with more clarity in the article I've referenced before: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/herbre.htm. While researching the ideas here, I came across it and thought "Wow, this is everything I wish I could convey to people about the complexities of this question!" If you want my viewpoint, it's said very well in that article.

[Chili]

Of course, 'Brahman' is attributeless, so It would not interfere.

So there you go, if our human condition is an attribute, man without the human condition is free from pain and suffering = Godman or just Man.

[Mountain Man]

Well, it depends on what we put behind this word I think. Everybody should explain the meaning of the word maybe it would avoid misunderstanding. It is not the same thing than saying christianity is not theistic, since almost all christians believe in a god and this god is viewed as the creative source of man and the world and he transcends them, which is not the case in buddhism where "gods" aka devas are only entities of the *same nature*, i.e. Buddha nature, than humans or animals.Why define what we all already know. We know that the Buddhist concept of gods is different than that of other religions. But that is NOT what the discussion is about. The false claim that "buddhism is atheistic" is the claim that has been made and has also been proven wrong.Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.....The definition stops there unless you wish to base the discussion on an equivocation.God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality...Again, pick ONE definition and stick with that one throughout the whole discussion.

[abaddon]

Why define what we all already know. We know that the Buddhist concept of gods is different than that of other religions. But that is NOT what the discussion is about. The false claim that "buddhism is atheistic" is the claim that has been made and has also been proven wrong.

By who? Name who said Buddhism is atheistic, please. Give a link if you can find it. I'm wondering who you are arguing against.

Again, pick ONE definition and stick with that one throughout the whole discussion.

If you want to limit the discussion to only one of the meanings of "god" then you tell us which we're supposed to limit ourselves to, and then we can all figure out if that fits Buddhism. Was the capitalized "God" that refers to "the supreme or ultimate reality" your choice?

We can make a great deal of progress in our discussion if you will be kind enough to answer these questions.

[abaddon]

It might clarify things if I say plainly: Not all Buddhists are atheist. Some are theist, as you've correctly noted. My point all along in our argument is that having some theists in it does not make Buddhism a theistic religion. It is in its core doctrines an agnostic, or a "nontheist," religion. It is not centered around a God or around gods; the purpose of Buddhism is not to worship gods or to pray to them. The Buddha's attitude, like mine, is that gods are irrelevant to living a good life and worshipping them is antithetical to freeing oneself from illusions. Buddhists that stray from that view do not represent what Buddhism is about.

We have to distinguish what some members of a religion do, from what that religion as a whole is about. There may be atheistic Christians, but you will agree, I think, that that is not what Christianity is about. So, with Buddhism, there may be theistic Buddhists but that's not what the religion in itself is about.

It seems to me you've mistaken the statement "Buddhism is not a theistic religion" to mean the same as "All Buddhists are atheists." Likewise, perhaps I've mistaken the statement "Many Buddhists are theists," along with several other statements you've made about what religions are, as an effort to prove that Buddhism is a theistic (i.e. a god-based) religion.

We can agree to disagree, but I hope we can clear whatever misunderstandings either of us have about what the other has said, and I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. Hopefully I'm understanding you better, and haven't still got it wrong.

[fatpie42]

That's a horrid bit of logic there. You've taken a relatively small group (Mahayana Buddhists) from within a vastly larger group (all Buddhists), and suggest that counting up an even smaller group yet (Tibetan Buddhists) amounts to significant numbers. I have to ask the question again: So what? Are you saying some, many, or even "nearly every Tibetan Buddhist" makes all of the Buddhist religion a god-based religion?


Tibet is the home of Mahayana buddhism and Tibetan buddhists are (due to the Chinese occupation) found in the surrounding countries. Tibetan buddhists make up a very large minority of Buddhist believers. So the fact that I've taken a small sample does not make it an irrelevant sample. (You will see how it does not matter that it isn't a random sample in a moment.)

You seem to have misunderstood the argument. I wasn't claiming that all of Buddhism is god-based. I was claiming that at least SOME buddhism is God-based. You seemed to be saying that any belief in God would have to be superfluous to Buddhism. In mahayana buddhism worship appears to be theistic, the way the buddha and many boddhisatvas are viewed appears theistic. Hell, if it looks like an elephant, sounds like an elephant, and walks like an elephant, maybe it IS an elephant?

I don't think Theravada buddhism is theistic at all, but I'm not convinced that theravada buddhists can even be described as the majority of buddhists.

[fatpie42]

To answer that question, what matters foremost is this question: "Do core Buddhist doctrines rely on superhuman beings (as their source, as their justification, as their purpose, etc.)?" The answer to that is, "No they do not." Buddhism is therefore not a god-based religion like Christianity is.


The majority of Christians would not describe God as a superhuman. Your idea of God is a straw man because most sensible religious believers are not naive realists. You have not yet shown that buddhism is any less god-based than Christianity since you have given a definition of God that most modern Christian theologians would not hold.

[premjan]

->> Karma kanda deals with ritualistic part of the vedas........fire sacrifices do exist, but no more of animal sacrifices, of any kind.........and they are no more considered as important.............
Maybe more culturally significant than purely religious, but one can't I think say that they are gone as yet.

[fatpie42]

It might clarify things if I say plainly: Not all Buddhists are atheist. Some are theist, as you've correctly noted.

Don't forget that theism is a part of their buddhists beliefs and not just an extra belief 'on the side' in some cases.

My point all along in our argument is that having some theists in it does not make Buddhism a theistic religion.

No one is saying buddhism is a 'theistic religion'. Who ever said that? All we are saying is that buddhism does not exclude the possibility of theism. A buddhist who worships buddha as a God is not automatically 'not a buddhist'.

It is in its core doctrines an agnostic, or a "nontheist," religion. It is not centered around a God or around gods; the purpose of Buddhism is not to worship gods or to pray to them.

Well in Mahayana buddhism worshipping a God-like buddha figure is pretty important. Aren't you doing the opposite to what you complained to us for doing? Aren't you claiming here that Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion even though you have admitted that Buddhists can be theists?

The Buddha's attitude, like mine, is that gods are irrelevant to living a good life and worshipping them is antithetical to freeing oneself from illusions.

How do you know what the Buddha's attitude is? Have you spoken to him personally? Did he visit you during meditation?

Buddhists that stray from that view do not represent what Buddhism is about.

Says you.



We have to distinguish what some members of a religion do, from what that religion as a whole is about. There may be atheistic Christians, but you will agree, I think, that that is not what Christianity is about. So, with Buddhism, there may be theistic Buddhists but that's not what the religion in itself is about.

Well Don Cupitt makes a good case for an essentially atheistic spirituality. Non-realism is a bit different from out-and-out atheism, but you get the idea. I don't think it is fair to say that people like Don Cupitt or D Z Phillips 'aren't REALLY Christian'.


It seems to me you've mistaken the statement "Buddhism is not a theistic religion" to mean the same as "All Buddhists are atheists." Likewise, perhaps I've mistaken the statement "Many Buddhists are theists," along with several other statements you've made about what religions are, as an effort to prove that Buddhism is a theistic (i.e. a god-based) religion.


I think you have hit the nail on the head there!


We can agree to disagree, but I hope we can clear whatever misunderstandings either of us have about what the other has said, and I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. Hopefully I'm understanding you better, and haven't still got it wrong.

It looks like you are beginning to cotton on.


As for this idea that Buddhism is a less dogmatic religion, well probably. It still remains that it is a belief system that expects us to believe in the fantastical, the mythical, and the unfalsifiable. I feel rather wary of it. Still I can accept it as a good spirituality, but then again many theologians like Karl Rahner and Don Cupitt have some very interesting ideas on spirituality that I think all people can learn from too, so I don't see why I should see Buddhism as special.

I think the main problem is that Buddhism wishes to solve the problems of the world by encouraging life spent as a recluse meditating in a room. I think I prefer the insistence that we get out there and help people that is found in the more liberal end of Christianity any day.

[perfectbite]

Tibet is the home of Mahayana buddhism ...

I beg to disagree. The last time I looked Sanskrit was Indian and the Mahayanist Sutras were originally rendered in Sanskrit.

The split between Theravada and Mahayana in India occured WAY before Tibet adopted Buddhism.

[Mountain Man]

It might clarify things if I say plainly: Not all Buddhists are atheist.That all of Buddhism is atheistic was the claim of the OP. I cleared that up long ago that it was not.

[abaddon]

That all of Buddhism is atheistic was the claim of the OP. I cleared that up long ago that it was not.

Ah. Well, now I know who "they" are.

But if we look back at the OP, we'll see that mopc was talking about a lack in Buddhism of a dictatorial Creator God characteristic of monotheistic religions.

[abaddon]

Tibet is the home of Mahayana buddhism and Tibetan buddhists are (due to the Chinese occupation) found in the surrounding countries. Tibetan buddhists make up a very large minority of Buddhist believers. So the fact that I've taken a small sample does not make it an irrelevant sample. (You will see how it does not matter that it isn't a random sample in a moment.)

You seem to have misunderstood the argument. I wasn't claiming that all of Buddhism is god-based. I was claiming that at least SOME buddhism is God-based. You seemed to be saying that any belief in God would have to be superfluous to Buddhism ...

I understood the OP's argument to be against religion generally, but particularly opposed to a monotheistic Creator God (capital G). I took the objections that religions all share common characteristics, including gods, texts, dogma, as meant to prove Buddhism is inherently theistic like the more familiar religions.

You're approaching this more from the perspective of counting heads. But there are so many variances within a religion that saying "this person believes" and "that sect does this" makes it impossibly complex -- for any example you dredge up about what's found in religion, someone can find a counterexample -- so I figured the most sure way to get a basic grasp of "what Buddhism is about" would be to focus on the early texts of Buddhism and see what Buddha is reported to have said about gods, dogma, etc.

Mahayana is more complex in itself than you are allowing. Not only is its "home" not Tibet, but also India exported it to China before Tibet or anywhere else. And it traveled (and changed wherever it traveled) to Japan, Korea and Vietnam as well. Zen is considered a variety of Mahayana. Will you count these others in your “very large minority�?

You have not yet shown that buddhism is any less god-based than Christianity since you have given a definition of God that most modern Christian theologians would not hold.

You argue the populist point of view while discussing Buddhism, but the theologian's point of view regarding Christianity.

By "superhuman" I meant "more than human," but the point remains the same whatever word you or Christians would prefer. Buddhism is not a god-based religion like Christianity. The Buddha's doctrines are not revelations; they do not derive authority from supernatural sources of any kind, regardless of what cultural variations were introduced later.

Don't forget that theism is a part of their buddhists beliefs and not just an extra belief 'on the side' in some cases.

Theism, if that's the right word for all the "praying Buddhists" (sometimes "gods" are merely nonhuman beings stuck in the wheel of rebirth and sometimes they're tools for meditation), is an extra belief on the side from the core doctrines of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.

No one is saying buddhism is a 'theistic religion'. Who ever said that? All we are saying is that buddhism does not exclude the possibility of theism. A buddhist who worships buddha as a God is not automatically 'not a buddhist'.

Whoever said all Buddhists are atheists? (Answer: no one). A Buddhist who worships Buddha is a Buddhist who’s disregarded the Buddha's own advice.

Well in Mahayana buddhism worshipping a God-like buddha figure is pretty important. Aren't you doing the opposite to what you complained to us for doing? Aren't you claiming here that Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion even though you have admitted that Buddhists can be theists?

Buddhist doctrines (both the ones in the earliest texts reporting the Buddha's words, and later ones in Mahayana Zen teachings) are agnostic; gods do not play a central role there. They're "nontheist" in the sense that the metaphysical question regarding the existence of gods is irrelevant to practice, except that forming an attachment to the Buddha or any other entity, human or not, is ultimately not an effective way to liberate oneself from attachments.

Even the books I've read written by Tibetan teachers suggest gods are not taken literally, except by some (or perhaps "many") of the populace.

How do you know what the Buddha's attitude is? Have you spoken to him personally? Did he visit you during meditation? ... Says you.

He suggested what it is with extreme clarity in the Tripitaka. I'll find the quotes later when I'm home. But the gist is "find your own way, do not rely on outside sources," which is clearly antithetical to god-worship.

Well Don Cupitt makes a good case for an essentially atheistic spirituality. Non-realism is a bit different from out-and-out atheism, but you get the idea. I don't think it is fair to say that people like Don Cupitt or D Z Phillips 'aren't

REALLY Christian'.

I take it "non-realism" is not taking stories in religion literally. That'd be my stance to all myths as well.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there!

O fatpie, fatpie. Your attempts throughout the thread to clarify other people's points have been noted and are appreciated.

[premjan]

I thought Tibetan Buddhism was "Vajrayana" which used more of Tantra and native religious elements than Mahayana.

[perfectbite]

Basically, technically, any form of Buddhism that is not Theravadan, (Suttas) is Mahayanist (Sutras).

The term Buddhism refers to both Theravada and Mahayana.

Vajrayana is distinct enough to deserve a unique place in Buddhist thought and practice but it is still considered to be Mahayanist.

Vajrayana implies Buddhism. Although it is heavily associated with Buddhism, Zen doesn't necessarily imply Buddism because Zen has incorporated both elements of the Tao and the idea of original awakening (which original awakening is applicable only to those who are not familiar with the Buddha's Dharma but achieve enlightenment anyway).

[CaliNORML]

[QUOTE=Dharma]Buddhism's 4 Noble Truths is all there is -- I don't see any God in it.[QUOTE]


There follows the eightfold divine path.

The first is right understanding, then right thinking, no where in there is there stated a "belief." is required.

This expresion "the buddah says," is not quite accurate, I prefer, "The Buddah understood," as a more precise statement for the philosophy of Buddism.

Defined as a religion, a philosophy, and a therapy, it more closely resembles the last two descriptions than the first.

KMS

[perfectbite]

Perhaps in talking about Buddhism, to say that the Buddha understood would be acceptable but there are lots of books that have 'The sayings of the Buddha' as their title.

[CaliNORML]

The Buddah had to first understand them in order to teach them, it is never said you shall, or you must. He looked at the abstract world, and spoke of it to anyone who would listen by coversion of the principles into our concrete world. Much like the Parables of Jesus, asking us to look at what we see all around us, now look beyond and see more.

Aesop's Fables when heard do not lead one to think a Crow or a Fox may actually talk, yet these animals are concrete to our understanding. The moral is the point of that story, the abstract.

I see science taking on Aesop, "this whole thing us is untrue, it is based on the premise that animals can talk." Of course animals do not talk, it is the understanding that vanity is a great failure in life that has significance. Can science prove that vanity is bad for us as a fact? Or do we humans just know it by experience and learn it from sources such as "religion?"

The tale teller had to understand the abstract and present it in a way for others to understand.

The Buddah understood, thus he said to those who would hear, "The Buddah says," is only how it is written and presented. It is not an order of how one must live life, it is what he understood about that abstract life we live and human interaction with each other, and most especially the interaction of one with oneself.

KMS

[revpo]

I have read about buddhism, there are so many sects of it , it would be somewhat confusing, they in some ways follow the paths eightfold and the 4 precepts<or what ever they are called>, and do a lot of meditation to climb to a higher dimension and rid themselves of fear.
Anyhow to me they are coming more shall we say americanized, having their services or what you call them on SUNDAYS.
I read in national geographic it is an upcoming sect.

revpo

[pescifish]

Welcome to the IIDB and NARP (Non-Abrahamic Religions & Philosophy), revpo. Good to see your first post and I hope you enjoy the board!

[J842P]

I read about 9 pages into this thread and decided that the final 3 would be the same, so please excuse me if I missed anything.
That being said, I think people are tackling this question as if Buddhism were a Western religion, and I really don't see what you guys are arguing about.

The funny thing about Eastern religious (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism) is that many times, they wouldn't even be considered a religion in the Western sense (Confucianism).
What happens is that many times, religions in the East mix, and there is absolutly no problem with that. Where you might be hard pressed to find a Jewish Muslim, you could easily find a Buddhist, Taoist Confucian. Buddhism by itself does not deal with gods, it deals with the idea of Dukkha, (roughly translated as suffering), and how to escape this suffering. When Buddhism diffused amongst East/South/Southeast Asia, it blended into many of the native religions, (native gods becoming bodhisattvas). Mahayana Buddhism embraces the fact that we all have different methods of gaining enlightenment, the Buddha said "Be lantern's onto yourselves" (something like that, it's been a while since I studied this). So in many places where you find Mahayana Buddhism, you will find the worship of native gods, especially among the masses, because it is their lantern.
Is Buddhism theistic? I don't think so. The supernatural aspects of Buddhism revolve around Samsara (the cycle of birth and rebirth), not around a deity.
Can Buddhists be theistic? Yes.

[Yeshi]

here, once more the take on deities in vajrayana buddhism, good source is khandro.net:

Why call them deities; why not gods?

Although the word deity was originally a synonym for god, experience has shown that some practices such as those performed by Buddhists consist of a type of address in which the intent is rather different from the usual ancient one. That is, the general intention is not to propitiate; not to flatter, placate or enter into contracts.

There is another important difference between Buddhist deities and mythological gods or goddesses. The latter are, or were once, considered real -- described as motivated by jealousy, power and other appetites and not very different from physical creatures such as people. The deities of Buddhism are ultimately regarded as manifestations of Emptiness. Some practitioners eventually abandon deity devotion as a method for attaining an enlightened state when it has outlived its utility.

www.khandro.net (http://www.khandro.net/deities.htm)

[Chili]

I think anyone who looks at Buddhism to find religious atheism is trying to deprogram theism in his own mind. There is nothing wrong with theism until we become God at which time there is no longer any room for theism or atheism. Atheism is wrong in that it denies the very -ism it is standing on and here Buddhism is not an answer but at best an escape from theism.