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.
Is it a waste of time for a Buddhist to ponder atheism/theism?
I know that it is one of the ''unconjecturables'' to wonder about the nature of a creator God or the origins of the universe; but, does that mean that there is no point in theorizing about the existence/non-existence of Gods? Since the ultimate goal of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering, is this train of thought a hindrance to that goal?
Technically Buddhism (at least my school) is polytheistic because it accepts Gods, and the Japanese pantheon. My teacher has never said that one needs to accept these things as more than a metaphor... but we still have practices that are forms of honor and venation for these beings. From my (limited) experience, American Buddhists put much less emphasis on ancestor worship, and on knowledge and veneration of deities. Is it dishonest or lazy for a Buddhist to call themselves an atheist or an agnostic? I don't feel like these terms fit well, but I also feel it is important to be able to explain my position to people when speaking with secular atheists and non-Buddhist theists.
Technically Buddhism (at least my school) is polytheistic because it accepts Gods, and the Japanese pantheon. My teacher has never said that one needs to accept these things as more than a metaphor... but we still have practices that are forms of honor and venation for these beings. From my (limited) experience, American Buddhists put much less emphasis on ancestor worship, and on knowledge and veneration of deities. Is it dishonest or lazy for a Buddhist to call themselves an atheist or an agnostic? I don't feel like these terms fit well, but I also feel it is important to be able to explain my position to people when speaking with secular atheists and non-Buddhist theists.
0
Comments
If I found out there was (G/g)od(s) then I would strive to be aware and compassionate at all times and if I found out there wasn't, I would strive to be aware and compassionate at all times.
I think it's fun to speculate and come up with logical theories or whatever as long as they aren't clung to. I have some beliefs about god but I don't have any faith in them. I'd have to say no. Being agnostic is admitting that we just don't know for a fact. I have my beliefs but they are subject to change pending new information. In this way, I keep the wonder alive and allow myself to question my own beliefs.
It would probably make sense then to read what various Buddhist teachers have said on the subject, and see how they came to their (school's) view.
As for polytheism, we as Westerners have a culturally-conditioned view of God, and gods; it may be really hard for us to get past some of these views. For example, we're only a few decades, really, away from the typical British-empire view of "silly ignorant natives and their superstitions." With this specter looming, our cultural conditioning may not allow us to use deities as they are meant to be used in Buddhism--as inspiration and conceptual support for practice. If every time we see thangkas we can't help but think, "stupid superstition" then it's probably best to avoid the imagery until we have learned more about the role of deities in Buddhism. Maybe at some later point we will have shed our preconceptions and can use deity practice as an effective tool, or maybe not.
But we may lose a lot in the process; these practices have been used effectively for a very long time, and there's not necessarily an "imagery-free" replacement for them. With only so much time at our disposal, it could be worth suspending a little disbelief, making small steps, and seeing if we notice some benefit.
If, though, one really feels attached to the idea of God the father, the creator, even after examining views for or against, one should check and see if maybe going with that view is actually the best path for you personally. Or, you might look at Sikhism, or Jainism--Jainism believes in God, not as a creator, but as a perfect being.
Like you said with cultural conditioning, it can be hard to accept other deities when one has lost faith in the one they were born to. I find the Buddhist and Japanese deities to be absolutely fascinating, but I guess I just have a hard time when people ask if I *really* believe all of that stuff, or when I'm going to get over it and just become a secular atheist like everyone else. lol
With enough practice an atheistic Buddhist may develop experiences that are supernatural or unexplainable. In a similar way a deeply Spirit orientated practitioner may develop an understanding of the arising of their own nature.
Buddhism and the God-idea
I would go as far as to say it would be undharmic to not have pondered these questions at some point on the path. Equally, it would not be wise dharma to get attached to these questions.
Personally, I think atheists are still theists deep down inside. God just didn't work out for them — maybe he didn't answer their one big prayer. What I really find objectionable are people like western Buddhism's wily Stephen Batchelor who uses the word "atheist" in the title of his most recent book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. It is objectionable because the definition of atheism is being overextended to include otherworldliness and the paranormal (e.g., postmortem survival). If a Buddhist accepts karma and rebirth, this is a form of theism to the so-called Buddhist atheist. Personally, I can't agree with this. (We need to keep in mind what the definition of atheism is. This is from the O.E.D. : atheism, n., Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).)
Since we try to free ourselves from attachments in Buddhism, I'd like to suggest that you have an attachment to being against Stephen Bachelor. You post about him over and over and over again. Not complaining, just saying.
"......He is completely wrong about Buddhism and so are those who follow him (that includes his not-so-good-looking wife). "
It is my understanding according to ANY Buddha teaching/school/lineage, this
statement was filled to the brim with unskillful intention of not only
speech, but wisdom. Dont be ugly.
Let's set an example.
Personal insults and then the extra kick in the
nuts of insulting the wife are unnecessary to prove
any points you would have concerning the OP, topic,
or response to another poster, for that matter!
I stand by my 'Dont be/act ugly'.
EOS (end of sermon)
According to the apophatic ascent of the Mystical Theology central to the Eastern Church and the writings of Dionysius when referring to the nature of God:
“it is not something, neither is it of any kind or degree; it is not mind, it is not soul; it is not moved, nor again does it remain still; it is neither in space nor in time; it is in itself, of one kind, or rather, without kind, being before all kind, before movement, before stillness, for all these things concern being, and make it many.”
Vladimir Lossky writes regarding mystical contemplation:
“It is by unknowing that one may know Him who is above every possible object of knowledge. Proceeding by negations one ascends from the inferior degrees of being to the highest, by progressively setting aside all that can be known, in order to draw near to the Unknown in the darkness of absolute ignorance. For even as light, and especially abundant light, renders darkness invisible; even so the knowledge of created things, and especially excess of knowledge, destroys the ignorance which is the only way by which one can attain to God in Himself.”
“It is necessary to renounce the sense and all the workings of reason, everything which may be known by the senses or the understanding, both that which is and all that is not, in order to be able to attain in perfect ignorance to union with Him who transcends all being and knowledge. It is already evident that this is not simply a question of a process of dialectic but of something else: purification is necessary. One must abandon all that is impure and even all that is pure. One must then scale the most sublime heights of sanctity leaving behind one all the divine luminaries, all heavenly sounds and words. It is only thus that one may penetrate to the darkness wherein He who is beyond all created things makes his dwelling.”
I did'nt enter the discussion with the intention of giving my
opinion of him. I will not endorce/participate with infighting.
Not in spite of it's existance, but because of it's existance.
I accept whatever dilusion(s)/Karma that come with this train
of thought.
I don't think Buddha would have a target list.
I could be wrong. I'll keep an open mind.
That just depends on whether it is taking your time away from something that's more valuable to focus on.
Who better to answer that than you!
Please keep to topic.
Any posts anybody feels are offensive, unskillful or unwarranted should be flagged for Moderator consideration, and never responded to.
many thanks.
If the Buddha popped back up today, we'd probably ALL be heretics in his eyes, including you and me. And it would be totally irrelavant. The Buddha did not invent the Dharma. He did not say, "The only road to enlightenment is through me and by doing what I say." He was not handed an exclusive list of commandments from God. He did not have some revealed truth that we are unable to comprehend and have to take on faith because he said it.
All he did was point a finger at what was there all along. Instead of arguing about which finger he used, taste the Dharma for yourself.
Eventually, you have to stop being a student and go out into the world and apply what you've learned and have confidence in your own understanding. One of the things Zen gets right is, you do not comprehend the Dharma if you think it's just learning how to imitate the Teacher. If some of your experience disagrees with your teacher, all you can say is, that was his understanding and this is mine. But you'd better say it with authority if you mean it.
I don't think it's ever a waste of time to ponder the big questions like is there a God or afterlife, because then you eventually learn for yourself how little it matters one way or another. How else do you learn that? Take someone's word for it?
So ponder the big questions, make up your mind if you believe in Gods, realms, whatever. Yes, no, maybe, whatever. Then put that distraction aside and get on with your practice.
My opinion.
Actually, I think us pondering such things in the first place is what makes us human. And the last time I checked, that's what we exactly are.
If you want to talk about whether something is worthwhile, you have to put in the context of a set of goals and values. From the perspective of the Buddha's goals and values, it is not only a waste of time, it is counterproductive (as you can see from the hostility and misbehavior in this thread.) In that context, the questions worth attending to are the ones which deepen one's commitment to Buddhist practice and improve one's skill at it. That essentially means avoiding all questions which concern a personal or cosmological narrative.
It's common advice, for example, to go at least briefly through each Buddhist school's view in order to arrive at your own school's explanation. The Dalai Lama often begins talks with a general overview of common religious views on God/theism, and then moves on to Buddhism's view. He often then explains the various non-theistic Buddhist schools' views on mind and reality, and finally describes his own school's view.
Contrast is not a bad thing--sometimes it's helpful or even vital.
With all due respect to @fivebells, if we took the approach of avoiding all questions which concern a personal narrative, there would be no forums
But seriously, I like Buddhism because it encourages questioning.
I think its important to establish clarity here; most people who have faith would claim to know because of their faith, I think, yes? A Christian who has faith in Jesus would speak with the same amount of certainty as a chemist who says "this reaction will....etc
Faith is the very antithesis of doubt. I think faith can be beautiful, but it is not the same as Truth. I have never understood Buddhists who think external-faith is somehow important to Dharma. I can see how internal faith is, but this is not what they mean, in my experience (Like those that try to belittle the importance of the Kalama Suttra's core message/instruction!). It befuddles me:)
Namaste
Buddhism- faith is knowing that your beliefs are empty, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
So, realizing that it is very vast and intelligent, I decided that theistic belief systems are more like narrow pathways to access very specific states of being, not always positive. Also they are like artistic expressions. The core of buddhism is not like this. It is all encompassing, and it is a discussion that transcends concepts of god.
To make it simple, people in my life who don't know anything about buddhism ask me if buddhists believe in god. I tell them this:
buddhists do believe in god, so to speak. However, we see it as something far too huge and complicated to even really speak about in terms that religions do. Therefore we focus on bettering ourselves, on compassion, on knowledge and wisdom, on the mysteries of the mind and consciousness.
I think that this is the most accurate and kindest thing to say to curious laypeople.
Of course the true practice is beyond all conceptualization. this is why atheism is not a factor. (atheism being a conceptual construct and a thought pattern system, which are all equally rendered void)
So yes. But I may say no if asked again, and be correct then too.
'Not my will but thine.'
'Not my will but thine.'
of course the term "god" is usually used to refer to a subtly patriarchal omnipotence with a partially human personality. This view of 'god' is vastly limited and constricted. Like I said, I think that the enlightened view of existence is one in which we can be fairly well assured that the universe is intelligent and there is a meaning to our existence in general. Im fairly certain that vinlyn disagrees with this assessment, which is fine. I have been careful to say that this is my opinion. However I will say that atheism and buddhism (as in the path laid out by sakyamuni) are not the same thing.
but the general idea that i put forth is that the enlightened view of 'god' is such that we generally find that speaking of 'god' as if it is something that can be easily apprehended is inherently limiting and ultimately destructive. it;s much better to say, go look for yourself, make up your own mind.... ie we focus on practice and knowledge. Not only that, it is far more moral and less imposing approach.
But this is not clung to. Because recognition cannot lead to definition.
Buddhists don't even believe the same thing about Buddha. (insert smiley face here)
At least that's what a Christian friend said something very similar to.
It may be that there are those who's understanding of the economy of salvation is minimal in the way that you describe, or the essence and energies of God or the mystery of Personhood are conceptualized by them, but if it motivates them to develop a more diciplined life and progress spiritually on the path of humility then who am I to judge.
I still have the plank lodged in my eye, and this is something I will admit I'm slow to learn and remember.