Can a Buddhist believe in God?

[Rick O'Shez]

However, secularism is if anything a great help in attaining spirituality worth the trouble.

But secularism is dismissive of spirituality.

 

[Ablaze]

Not at all. I'm saying that atheists also tend to be secularists, which involves a rejection of anything spiritual or "supernatural".

This is not so. There are plenty of atheists who embrace spirituality. Atheism means without (a-) god (theism). That does not automatically exclude everything else spiritual.

 

[Ablaze]

But secularism is dismissive of spirituality.

Far off the mark. Secularism acknowledges and respects the boundaries between religious thought and non-religious thought. There are thousands of spiritually inclined people who identify as secularists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are plenty of atheists who embrace spirituality. Atheism means without (a-) god (theism). That does not automatically exclude everything else spiritual.

I didn't claim that atheism automatically excludes spiritual. I said that many atheists are also skeptical about anything spiritual and anything supernatural.

 

[Ablaze]

I didn't claim that atheism automatically excludes spiritual. I said that many atheists are also skeptical about anything spiritual and anything supernatural.

Likewise, there are many atheists who are not automatically skeptical about anything spiritual and anything supernatural.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are thousands of spiritually inclined people who identify as secularists.

I haven't met them. Actually it's a simple matter of definition, ie secular = non-religious.

 

[metis]

With Amerindian "religion", there traditionally was no difference between "spiritual" and "secular". Reminds me of what Gandhi's response to the issue of separation of church and state whereas he said that anyone who thinks that the two can be completely separated really doesn't understand religion. Let me add to that they they also really don't much understand politics either.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Likewise, there are many atheists who are not automatically skeptical about anything spiritual and anything supernatural.

Very few in my experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

With Amerindian "religion", there traditionally was no difference between "spiritual" and "secular".

Maybe because it was an inherently spiritual society, where "secular" wouldn't really have a meaning?

 

[Ablaze]

I haven't met them. Actually it's a simple matter of definition, ie secular = non-religious.

Simply because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. To suggest so is in line with the logical fallacy "Arguing from Ignorance."

 

[Ablaze]

Very few in my experience.

Quite a lot in mine.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Simply because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. [/URL]

And simply because you have met some doesn't mean there are lots.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Quite a lot in mine.

So what's your experience of Buddhism and other spiritual traditions? I've been at this for over 30 years and have explored all the major Buddhist schools as well as a range of other traditions. How about you?

 

[Ablaze]

And simply because you have met some doesn't mean there are lots.

I have met lots, not just some. However, you've misunderstood if you think I'm making the same type of sweeping generalizations as you. Personally, I find over-generalizations un-useful.

 

[Ablaze]

So what's your experience of Buddhism and other spiritual traditions? I've been at this for over 30 years and have explored all the major Buddhist schools as well as a range of other traditions. How about you?

Usually, I am not one to enumerate these details because it comes across as gloating, which is far from how I attempt to live my life. If, however, you would sincerely like to know, or if it would be helpful for you to read a bit about my background to put it in perspective, I am happy to share for the purposes of contextualization.

I have recently completed the entire Sutta Piṭaka (all five Nikāyas - Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, Khuddaka) - both in Pāḷi and what is available in English with extensive cross-analysis of the corresponding Āgamas as preserved in classical Chinese. After English, Pāḷi and Chinese are my strongest languages. The Nikāyas are my go-to source for most questions that arise in my practice.

I have studied the Pāḷi Vinaya Piṭaka and its existing English translations.

I have read through the entire Abhidhamma Piṭaka three times over several years, each time with a deeper understanding.

I have studied all the major Mahāyāna Sūtras - in Sanskrit, English, and Chinese - as well as notable commentaries. Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras - Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (8,000 lines), Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond), Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra (Heart), etc. The Saddharma Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (Lanka), Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana), Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra (Lotus), Avataṃsaka Sūtra, Platform Sūtra of Huìnéng (南宗頓教最上大乘摩訶般若波羅蜜經六祖惠能大師於韶州大梵寺施法壇&#32147, Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra, etc. Pureland Sūtras - Mahā Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Cula Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Amitābha Sūtra. The list goes on.

I am a big fan of Indo-Tibetan philosophy. I have read Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Vigrahavyāvartanī at least ten times each, plus additional texts attributed to the same author such as the Śūnyatāsaptati, Yuktiṣāṣṭika, Bodhicittavivaraṇa, Ratnāvalī, and so on. Chandrakīrti's commentaries, including the Madhyamakāvatāra, and Śāntideva's seminal work - the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra - also feature prominently in my studies. I am also studying Tibetan.

Over the past eight years, I have practiced an average of two hours of formal seated meditation every day - a minimum of 30 minutes each and every day without fail in the beginning, now a consistent two hours daily, and a maximum of 12-14 hours per day when circumstances allow. I also have experience leading various Buddhist meditation groups and giving Dharma talks as well as facilitating short retreats. I was given permission to teach by my first teacher, in the tradition of Korean Seon (Zen), and by my teachers in the Japanese Zen and Theravāda traditions. Personally, however, I consider myself a lifelong student of the Dharma, not an authority figure of any kind.

By now, I have attended several dozen retreats ranging from weekend residential retreats to 10-day silent forest retreats with the saṅgha. I attend saṅghas from two different Buddhist traditions a minimum of three days every week. In my eight years of practice, I have never gone more than a week without meeting with a teacher or the saṅgha in person, face to face - valuing all three jewels without exception, which each play an equal role in my life.

In terms of non-Buddhist traditions, I have read the corpus of Confucian and Daoist texts in classical Chinese, as well as their English translations. As for Sanātana Dharma, I have read the major Upaniṣads (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Māṇḍūkya, Chāndogya, Isha, Kaṭha, etc.) and sizable portions of the Vedas - in English and Sanskrit. I have no experience practicing in any of the Abrahamic traditions but have read the Quran several times through. I have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas and segments from the New Testament. I have not yet explored the Torah.

Hopefully that provides the type of background you were inquiring about.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have met lots, not just some. However, you've misunderstood if you think I'm making the same type of sweeping generalizations as you. Personally, I find over-generalizations un-useful.

Actually I think we're both guitly of over-generalising.

 

[Ablaze]

Hopefully this post will help put into perspective what it means to draw conclusions based on over-generalizations about atheists, secularists, [Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus,] etc.

And simply because you have met some doesn't mean there are lots.

Here's a simple example of what I mean. When I say I've met lots, which I have, then there are lots in my experience, and I am speaking only about those "lots" that I have experienced. Lots does not mean all, and no where did I state this is always the case, or that it applies to everyone. However, when you say you've met "few" examples to the contrary, this is taken beyond what you've experienced and used to draw over-generalized conclusions, such as the following:

But secularism is dismissive of spirituality.

Maybe because it was an inherently spiritual society, where "secular" wouldn't really have a meaning?

These examples, of which there are more, suggest this is the state of the world - not that "some secularists" or "most secularists" or "a lot of secularists" dismiss spirituality, but that "secularism is dismissive of spirituality" - which is a blanket statement that can be disproven by even a single example (of which there are many) to the contrary.

Furthermore, to call anything inherently this or that is to draw a sweeping over-generalization about a society or group of people. One instance can upset this "rule" or overturn the "norm" and thereby show that the over-generalization based on the sample is non-representative of the population as a whole.

Contrast that with this type of response:

This is not so. There are plenty of atheists who embrace spirituality. Atheism means without (a-) god (theism). That does not automatically exclude everything else spiritual.

You may notice from several of my posts that I tend to give a relative representations (plenty, some, lots), rather than suggest "this is the way it is" as you do. You may also notice that I don't make statements of generalization about one thing automatically leading to the next (atheism or secularism automatically leading to rejection of spirituality). When I say plenty, I am talking about the plenty, not about all atheists. When I say lots, I am talking about lots, never about everyone. When I say some, I am talking about some, not all. In my understanding, that is the whole purpose for using these types of modifiers consistently: to avoid drawing unwarranted over-generalizations.

There is a difference between saying "secularists are..." (an over-generalization, implying all secularists are the same way) and "[many|plenty|some|lots of] secularists are..." (a quantified statement that applies to a sample, but not everyone from the population). Do you see the difference?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

As for Sanātana Dharma, I have read the major Upaniṣads (Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Māṇḍūkya, Chāndogya, Isha, Kaṭha, etc.) and sizable portions of the Vedas - in English and Sanskrit. I have no experience practicing in any of the Abrahamic traditions but have read the Quran several times through. I have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas and segments from the New Testament. I have not yet explored the Torah.

It's īśa/ईश (as in īśvara/ईश्वर -- master), not iśa/इश. Just pointing that out, as the latter word means a direction from where something is impelled (judging by its use in the Gobhilagṛhyasūtram), whereas the former word comes from the first padaḥ in the īśopaniṣad (īśā́vāsyàmidaṃ sárvam -- this lord [surely] pervades everything).

 

[Ablaze]

It's īśa/ईश (as in īśvara/ईश्वर -- master), not iśa/इश. Just pointing that out, as the latter word means a direction from where something is impelled (judging by its use in the Gobhilagṛhyasūtram), whereas the former word comes from the first padaḥ in the īśopaniṣad (īśā́vāsyàmidaṃ sárvam -- this lord [surely] pervades everything).

Thanks!

 

[Poeticus]

(īśā́vāsyàmidaṃ sárvam -- this lord [surely] pervades everything).

Noble Jas,

I am sure you are talking about me. I pervade everywhere. I am all-pervading. I am the light that flows from the darkness as well as the darkness that envelops. I, and I only, am this pervading. So, Jas. Will you do your part and worship me and offer me the fire rituals that I deem appropriate? Will you offer me those milky oblations? Will you do your part and acknowledge my pervading?