Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism in relation to pantheism and atheism
Quick question about definitions. I read that some schools of Buddhism would be considered atheism because it neglects the concept of an embodiment of God. In pantheism, God is the fundamental nature of reality, which is prominent in Hinduism.
Would Buddhism be accurately defined as atheistic because of no embodiment of God, or would pantheism suffice as one's path toward spiritual enlightenment? Or do definitions not matter?
Interested in hearing what you guys have to say!
Much Metta
Would Buddhism be accurately defined as atheistic because of no embodiment of God, or would pantheism suffice as one's path toward spiritual enlightenment? Or do definitions not matter?
Interested in hearing what you guys have to say!
Much Metta
0
Comments
Basically the gods in Buddhism only matter to teach us how they too are impermanent and afflicted by dukkha of some sort (because of ignorance). They aren't in control of us, can't grant anyone salvation, or anything else as far as I know. So terms like atheism and pantheism and the like are all sorta "Not Applicable" to Buddhism, which is more a tool (or method of awakening) than a religion. Buddhism is unique in comparison to other religions that those words would actually apply to.
At least.... I'm pretty sure.
Namaste
As far as I know, this is a mere mental state. When you are happy and joyful you are temporary in the Godly mental realm which eventually passes away.
My thoughts:
There are various kinds of Buddhism, some have divine beings others do not.
Dharma itself is atheistic in the sense that it doesn't contain any theistic concepts. This doesn't mean that Buddhism has to be atheistic.
I think the Buddha was at an athiest but his teachings are for everyone.
namaste
Hmm, many would actually see Buddhism as being more religions, especially in the more traditional schools. But again, depends on definition of 'religion'. My dictionary claims it's "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" which I don't believe is applicable in this case.
That's what I love about Buddhism, it can be so open to how you interpret the dharma! Words can mean too many different things!
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eRutmoPEWaQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eRutmoPEWaQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
As far as people who say Buddhism is compatible with an eternal creator God, I say nay.
From AccesstoInsight:
"From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world." - Nyanaponika Thera (Theravada Monk)
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
.
That is precisely it. All kinds of concepts come and go. Atheism doen't quite cover it because your still giving attention to God Concepts, just in an negative way. Non-theism is closer to the mark. Theism and athiesm are not dwelled on in practice.
One could make a pretty compelling case that the Buddha was an Antithiest, a la Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet etc, and that he was reacting against the very Theistic cultural system of the time...
But not like Dawkins or Hitchen.. oy. These men, especially Dawkins, are Materialists, and not particularly sophisticated ones at that. Hitchens is a clown, ......but he would be fun at a dinner party.
I think they are more functionalist than cure materialist, especially Dennet.
I think Hitchen's simple response to p[pascals wager is not the repsonce of a clown...
If you are interested in new atheism the common sense atheism blog is very good - and critical of Dawkins et al...
I think the Buddha was a functionalist to, the first! And greatest!
namaste
(PS for some reason I cannot private message you)
anyway I'll change the setting on the PM.
Completely agree. Don't forget Dawkin's (or any of them, as I understand it) are not having a go at Buddhism, but at the damage done to the world by the acutely theistic religions.
namaste