Buddhism and Theism

[PureX]

From what it is you currently know and understand about Buddhism; Is it a theistic or non-theistic practice?

Does Buddhism have deities and other spirits, or is it purely a philisophical position?

It's more complicated then that. Deities in eastern religions are understood to be conceptual representations created by humans for the sake of intellectual convenience. They give focus to prayers and rituals. They embody and give identity to real life phenomena and circumstances. It's not the same as what we in the west would define a "deity".

 

[LuisDantas]

It’s self evident that if actions have consequences there is a causal link, and therefore order, harmony, balance.

I will grant you cause (through "causal link" hangs a bit too close to imply intention to be helpful IMO), but I just don't get the conclusion. It comes out of nowhere to me.

While all material phenomena have no fundamental substance and are empty, the correlations (the order) of them do. You will find this philosophy in the writings of Nagarjuna; and among advocates of the relational interpretation of QM.

My. Let's just say that I disagree. Emphatically. With every single statement here after the word "empty".

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think the lack of a Supreme Creator in Buddhism is an example that denotes Anatta.

Let's call it thematical coherence then...

The universe doesn't need a Creator for it to be Non-empty.

... for this very reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, I could have, and should have put a "both" option. But I really was interested in what appears to be the secularization of Buddhism in the West. Like using "Mindfulness" in a mental health setting, something the Buddha spoke at length on.

So I left it a dichotomy to see which way people thought to lean.

I take issue with this use of the word secularization.

You seem to be equating theism with religiosity. That is a serious and misguiding mistake.

 

[LuisDantas]

Eastern Buddhists are much more likely to be theistic than Western ones

And you say that based on...?

I think that you are glossing over how dissimilar the entities that are sometimes used in oriental creeds - and particularly Dharmas - are from Abrahamic-taught conceptions of deities.

It is really rather unfortunate that the word used to describe variations of Abraham's style of deity has also been used so often to describe such disparate entities as the Daikini, the Devas, the Kami and sometimes even Kardecism's reincarnating spirits.

That results in nothing but avidya, grief, and waste of otherwise sincere effort.

 

[Colt]

From what it is you currently know and understand about Buddhism; Is it a theistic or non-theistic practice?

Does Buddhism have deities and other spirits, or is it purely a philisophical position?

No, Buddhism is one of the largest religions in the world without a God. Buddhism grew out of the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha in the 6th century before Christ. Siddhartha had a spiritual philosophy of life which was enormously positive and impactful in India and beyond. After death Siddartha became the Budda, the new focus of hope for subsequent followers and the many interpretations of "Buddhism". As with Christianity things changed considerably after Siddartha was gone.

 

[firedragon]

No, Buddhism is one of the largest religions in the world without a God. Buddhism grew out of the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha in the 6th century before Christ. Siddhartha had a spiritual philosophy of life which was enormously positive and impactful in India and beyond. After death Siddartha became the Budda, the new focus of hope for subsequent followers and the many interpretations of "Buddhism". As with Christianity things changed considerably after Siddartha was gone.

What in the world are you talking about mate? Where in any of Buddhist scripture does it say that Siddhartha became the Budda after his death?

 

[firedragon]

And you say that based on...?

I think that you are glossing over how dissimilar the entities that are sometimes used in oriental creeds - and particularly Dharmas - are from Abrahamic-taught conceptions of deities.

It is really rather unfortunate that the word used to describe variations of Abraham's style of deity has also been used so often to describe such disparate entities as the Daikini, the Devas, the Kami and sometimes even Kardecism's reincarnating spirits.

That results in nothing but avidya, grief, and waste of otherwise sincere effort.

What is Avidya as you spelled it? Can you explain?

 

[LuisDantas]

Avidya is ignorance. Mental confusion. The main cause of Dukkha (insatisfaction).

Arguably, the main goal of religious practice is to dissolve and remove it.

 

[Lyndon]

And you say that based on...?

I think that you are glossing over how dissimilar the entities that are sometimes used in oriental creeds - and particularly Dharmas - are from Abrahamic-taught conceptions of deities.

It is really rather unfortunate that the word used to describe variations of Abraham's style of deity has also been used so often to describe such disparate entities as the Daikini, the Devas, the Kami and sometimes even Kardecism's reincarnating spirits.

That results in nothing but avidya, grief, and waste of otherwise sincere effort.

I say that based on being a monk and temple boy at east asian Thervada temples where many of the members talked openly about God

 

[Twilight Hue]

I say tha based on being a monk and temple boy at east asian Thervada temples where many of the members talked openly about God

Sounds different than Buddhadasa's comments on the issue.

 

[LuisDantas]

I say that based on being a monk and temple boy at east asian Thervada temples where many of the members talked openly about God

Which, of course, no atheist ever does...

 

[Lyndon]

Sounds different than Buddhadasa's comments on the issue.

I believe Buddhadasa is another one of these populist Western monks

 

[Lyndon]

Which, of course, no atheist ever does...

belief in God silly

 

[LuisDantas]

belief in God silly

Belief proper is actually rather rare by my observation; even inside the Abrahamics; even in Islam that puts it front and center and makes everything revolve around it. That is why there is so much energy put into cultivating it, even shaming people into showing superficial signs of agreement with claims of belief.

There are whole sects that end up being remarkable for just that reason, even by the expectation of their mother faiths. Because they go out of their ways in order to insist on belief and (perhaps?) truly cultivate it instead of a resemblance of it.

To put it mildly, it doesn't always go well.

In practice, divinities and comparable concepts are useful as illustrations of ideals, virtues and sometimes even whole histories. They're shorthand for use in language. And all too often they are abused, sometimes to tragic result.

 

[Colt]

What in the world are you talking about mate? Where in any of Buddhist scripture does it say that Siddhartha became the Budda after his death?

There are no writings by Gautama Siddhartha. The earliest writings about him are from 2 centuries after he died. Like other spiritualists his stature became elevated later.

source Wiki



Nature of traditional depictions
Māyā miraculously giving birth to Siddhārtha. Sanskrit, palm-leaf manuscript. Nālandā, Bihar, India. Pāla period


"In the earliest Buddhist texts, the nikāyas and āgamas, the Buddha is not depicted as possessing omniscience (sabbaññu)[103] nor is he depicted as being an eternal transcendent (lokottara) being. According to Bhikkhu Analayo, ideas of the Buddha's omniscience (along with an increasing tendency to deify him and his biography) are found only later, in the Mahayana sutras and later Pali commentaries or texts such as the Mahāvastu.[103] In the Sandaka Sutta, the Buddha's disciple Ananda outlines an argument against the claims of teachers who say they are all knowing [104] while in the Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha himself states that he has never made a claim to being omniscient, instead he claimed to have the "higher knowledges" (abhijñā).[105] The earliest biographical material from the Pali Nikayas focuses on the Buddha's life as a śramaṇa, his search for enlightenment under various teachers such as Alara Kalama and his forty-five-year career as a teacher."

 

[Colt]

belief in God silly

The "self" wants to be its own savior.

 

[firedragon]

There are no writings by Gautama Siddhartha. The earliest writings about him are from 2 centuries after he died. Like other spiritualists his stature became elevated later.

Okay. So who said he became the Buddha after he died?

 

[Aupmanyav]

karma is an order

It is an 'iffy' thing. It may or it may not. That is why it cannot be termed as order.

Avidya is ignorance. Mental confusion. The main cause of Dukkha (insatisfaction).

Yeah, if one understands, then one will never be unhappy; whatever the situation be.

 

[firedragon]

Nature of traditional depictions
Māyā miraculously giving birth to Siddhārtha. Sanskrit, palm-leaf manuscript. Nālandā, Bihar, India. Pāla period


"In the earliest Buddhist texts, the nikāyas and āgamas, the Buddha is not depicted as possessing omniscience (sabbaññu)[103] nor is he depicted as being an eternal transcendent (lokottara) being. According to Bhikkhu Analayo, ideas of the Buddha's omniscience (along with an increasing tendency to deify him and his biography) are found only later, in the Mahayana sutras and later Pali commentaries or texts such as the Mahāvastu.[103] In the Sandaka Sutta, the Buddha's disciple Ananda outlines an argument against the claims of teachers who say they are all knowing [104] while in the Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha himself states that he has never made a claim to being omniscient, instead he claimed to have the "higher knowledges" (abhijñā).[105] The earliest biographical material from the Pali Nikayas focuses on the Buddha's life as a śramaṇa, his search for enlightenment under various teachers such as Alara Kalama and his forty-five-year career as a teacher."

Any tom, dick or harry can do cut and pastes just to make an impression.

You said Siddhartha died and became Buddha. Where in the world did you pick that up from?

Mate. You made a grave error. Just own up. It's wrong. And if you are now saying there are no early sources, did you just make that up with no sources whatsoever?

This is absurd. Unbelievably absurd.