Hello Michel,
You said:
"I really am extremely sorry to hear about the death of a long-time friend of yours; I understand and admire the fact that you wanted to be with his family to console them. I hope and trust that the funeral went according to plan, and that you are able to grieve for the death of your friend; I have lost two good friends through death - we cannot know how others will react (ie we can never empathise truly), but I was very upset - I hope you are coping; if you need 'an ear', I am always here...........I mean that."
Thank you for your sincere condolences and concern.
I know that death comes to us all at one point or another, but his death was untimely (he was but 45); and as always seems in the case of car accidents, quite pointless. The cause of the accident remains" undetermined" beyond "loss of control" (he crashed into a tree on a back road on a rainy night). Knowing him as I do (did), he is (was) an excellent driver, and would not have "lost control" without some other factor involved. I'd like to think (knowing his affinity for nature and all creatures great and small) that he was probably swerving to avoid some possum or raccoon in the road, and just lost it on recovery. He'd of said it was worth it...but I could have lived with one less possum in the world instead of losing him.
I will miss our conversations about virtually anything and everything; I will miss his enthusiasm and optimism; I will miss his goofy (and frequent) laugh; I will miss his intellect, compassion, and selfless generosity.
Unfortunately the tragedy extends beyond his surviving family, for he was a popular and admired teacher amongst his students as well. He was a decorated (heroism) soldier (retired). He was a loving father of two daughters, and dedicated husband to a phenomenal woman.
And...he was, my friend.
Well, enough of feeling sorry for myself...on to other things...
You said:
"As to Buddhism; There has obviously been contention concerning this;
These two books refered to Buddhism as atheist:-'Buddhism' Christmas Humphreys (1954) quoted atheist
"The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James 1901-1902
Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".
However
"The Phenomenon of Religion", Moojen Momen 1999 made a rebuttal of atheism in Buddhism.
And now, I find on
http://www.khandro.net/Buddhism_toc.htm
"Deities (buddhas & bodhisattvas, gods & goddesses.) Dakini: female deities of India and the Himalayas"
I think we can rtherefore say that Buddhism is a theistic philosophy."
No, we
could agree that Buddhism is a
religion, and that some folks (by agenda or ignorance) would prefer to define it to best suit their own sensibilities. The idea of an eternal "Creator God" is contrary to the Buddhist doctrines of anicca and anatta, and is
flatly contradicted in scripture (see, for example, the second section of the Brahmajala Sutta, pp.75-83 of Walshe's translation of the Digha Nikaya).
As to Dakini, read more here:
[
http://www.khandro.net/dakini_khandro.htm ]
"
Dakinis have been explained as "emanations of Enlightened Mind" but here is a further sense, since to possess "enlightened mind" is another way of saying, "holding the bodhisattva commitment." It can connote the wish for enlightenment not for one's self alone, but for the benefit of all sentient beings."
It is mere ignorance to suggest that allusion to "gods" as philosophical metaphor are the equivalent of/to "belief in" (or worship of) said gods. Even the god of the Bible speaks of "other gods", but Jews/Christians do not accept the notion of any other "gods"...except as allegory and historical reference.
But hey. Don't believe me. This is, after all, the "religious education" forum. Go ask a Buddhist for yourself whether or not they believe in, or worship any deities. Why trust an atheist?
I offered:
>>"One [core] fundamental belief involves reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana - a state of liberation and freedom from suffering."
[
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm ]
"Supernatural cause/effect outcomes/relationships", or not?"<<
You replied:
"Not in my opinion; the process of reincarnation, as I understand it does not require the intervention of a deity; the soul may be 'in charge' of the process of deciding whether it has learned the lesson (from that incarnation) - but it could be that the decision comes from a deity - there is no way of KNOWING that; but there is no PROOF that "Supernatural cause/effect outcomes/relationships" is the modus operandus."
Incorrect. You operate from the flawed conclusion that any/all "supernatural" explanations are attributable to a "deity". While true that influences "supernatural" *may" be attributed to a deity or "divine being" (as defined), that is not the entire scope or definition of the meaning of the word itself, or what it may imply/impart (as also defined).
To wit:
"supernatural", adj. -
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
- Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
"not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material"
- Source: WordNet ® 2.0
While you might like to think (or operate within) a realm wherein only a god (or deity) represents the supernatural, there are indeed many others that do not.
Your efforts to impose a deity "influence" upon the concept of reincarnation (akin to "evidence of absence equals absence of evidence"") just doesn't fly here, and any converse argument is equally empty and inapplicable.
Reincarnation, just like the concept of bodily resurrection, is a matter of religious belief, or "faith". Neither is "provable", because both are attributed to supernatural cause/effect relationships/outcomes. The only difference in attributable supernatural cause/effect outcomes between reincarnation and resurrection is that one is dependent upon an intervening deity, and the other is not.
You gotta admit, that the concept of a person dying; being "transformed"; and "coming back" as a veritable and viable dandelion (without any ascribed divine "intervention") meets the measure of a "supernatural" explanation.