Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Yoder777]

What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes?

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

Buddhists pray to and take refuge in various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but they are understood to be awakened human beings, and that, by taking refuge in them, we will also be led to our own awakening.

It's a common misconception that all Buddhists are atheists, which seems to be perpetuated by Western secularists who insist on projecting their understanding of Buddhism onto all Buddhists and by Theravada Buddhists who insist that their way is the only legitimate way to live the Dharma.

If you called a Mahayana Buddhist who's taken a Bodhisattva Vow, believes the Dalai Lama to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, and who prays to Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life, an atheist, would that really make sense in the way someone like Richard Dawkins would use the term?

 

[ananda]

What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes? What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born? ... It's a common misconception that all Buddhists are atheists, which seems to be perpetuated by Western secularists who insist on projecting their understanding of Buddhism onto all Buddhists ...

As an early Buddhist, I agree with this.

 

[gord44]

Good post. When I was into Buddhism I neither considered myself atheist or theist. I didn't matter to me. Still doesn't really to this day.

 

[awitch]

What if I told you that the universe has always existed in some form, so there's no need for a Creator, and that there's a natural law of cause and effect, so there's no need for a Judge who rewards and punishes?

I would say I agree.

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

I would say that I don't think the Universe, as a thing, can express compassion, but every human being can (which is just a nit-pick, really).[/quote]

 

[Eudaimonist]

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

I'd consider that a sort of pantheism. I'm not certain if I would classify pantheism as theistic or atheistic. It might technically be atheistic, but I realize that that might sound strange.

If you called a Mahayana Buddhist who's taken a Bodhisattva Vow, believes the Dalai Lama to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, and who prays to Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life, an atheist, would that really make sense in the way someone like Richard Dawkins would use the term?

I don't know. Do a Google and maybe you'll learn the answer.

I don't think that praying to an entity makes that entity a god in the theistic sense. It sounds to me like it could be equivalent to praying to an alien being in some cases.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Yoder777]

I would say that I don't think the Universe, as a thing, can express compassion, but every human being can (which is just a nit-pick, really).

[/QUOTE]

What I am referring to has different terms in Mahayana Buddhism, such as the Buddha-nature, Dharmakaya, or in Shin Buddhism, Amida Buddha. I am honestly not very familiar with what Theravada teaches.

 

[smaneck]

What if I then told you that, instead of a God as we understand the term, there is a compassionate essence to the universe that is within each and every human being, and It is our true nature waiting to be born?

Is there any such thing as 'essences' in Buddhism? It seems to me their epistemology is totally nominalistic.

It's a common misconception that all Buddhists are atheists, which seems to be perpetuated by Western secularists who insist on projecting their understanding of Buddhism onto all Buddhists and by Theravada Buddhists who insist that their way is the only legitimate way to live the Dharma.

I think the assumption is that if there is a creator god he really did an awful job of it. As for lesser deities, since they are stuck on the same merry-go-round as you are, how can they help you?

If you called a Mahayana Buddhist who's taken a Bodhisattva Vow, believes the Dalai Lama to be the 14th incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, and who prays to Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light and Life, an atheist, would that really make sense in the way someone like Richard Dawkins would use the term?

Never paid much attention to Richard Dawkins myself, but I would agree that venerating bodhisattvas isn't very different from worshiping gods. I didn't know that the Dalai Lama was supposed to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara.

 

[Yoder777]

Is there any such thing as 'essences' in Buddhism? It seems to me their epistemology is totally nominalistic.



I think the assumption is that if there is a creator god he really did an awful job of it. As for lesser deities, since they are stuck on the same merry-go-round as you are, how can they help you?



Never paid much attention to Richard Dawkins myself, but I would agree that venerating bodhisattvas isn't very different from worshiping gods. I didn't know that the Dalai Lama was supposed to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara.

Are you writing things from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective or something else? Where does your knowledge come from of what Mahayana Buddhists believe and practice? Are you familiar with the devotion to Amitabha Buddha common in Mahayana Buddhism?

 

[smaneck]

Are you writing things from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective or something else?

Just from the standpoint of a historian.

Where does your knowledge come from of what Mahayana Buddhists believe and practice?

From my studies.

Are you familiar with the devotion to Amitabha Buddha common in Mahayana Buddhism?

Yep. And I can even pronounce Avalokiteshvara.

 

[Arthra]

One point I've gathered is from some of the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha is called negative theology... or "apophetic" theology... A fairly good article on this can be found at

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Apophatic_theology

In ancient Vedic philosophy it is "neti ... neti..." Neti neti, meaning, "Not this, not this", is the method of Vedic analysis of negation.

Another aspect of early Buddhist artifacts that should be noted is the absence of an actual representation of the Buddha ..rather symbols are used to represent His presence...

See:

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/...-significance-in-comparative-religion-IDD692/

 

[Yoder777]

I must be honest that my knowledge of Buddhism is mostly limited to Pure Land Buddhism, which happens to be the most commonly practiced form of Mahayana Buddhism in the East.

 

[smaneck]

<STAFF EDIT>
Sorry, your tone struck me as somewhat accusatory. I was just responding with humor. I happen to like the notion of bodhisattvas very much. I don't think of them as gods however.

 

[smaneck]

I must be honest that my knowledge of Buddhism is mostly limited to Pure Land Buddhism, which happens to be the most commonly practiced form of Mahayana Buddhism in the East.

Well, you did know that the Dalai Lama was supposed to be Avalokiteshvera which was more than I knew. The Pure Land Sect is the largest sect of Buddhism period. Buddhism largely died in India so nearly all Buddhists are found in East Asia or Southeast Asia. The only Buddhists left in India are the Neo-Buddhists, untouchables who converted to Buddhism during the 1950's. Under the leadership of Dr. Ambedkar they embraced the Theravada form of Buddhism.

In any case, the Pure Land Sect taught 'salvation by grace' long before Christianity.

 

[dlamberth]

I'd consider that a sort of pantheism.

I'd say Panentheism .

.

 

[smaneck]

Another aspect of early Buddhist artifacts that should be noted is the absence of an actual representation of the Buddha ..rather symbols are used to represent His presence...

True. Stone idols were introduced by the Greeks who came to India with Alexander the Great. The earliest Buddha idols were modeled after the Greek god Apollo. Those early Buddhas depict him wearing a Greek toga. (The Taliban blew up most of these.) Incidentally the 'bun' on the top of his head is the "knot of wisdom" intended to represent his supernatural knowledge. Buddha doesn't become 'fat' until Buddhism spreads to China. "Fat" in Chinese iconography was a sign of well-being. The Laughing Buddha, btw, is not Guatama Buddha at all but Amitabha Buddha of the Pure Land Sect. What happens to the iconography of Avalokiteshvara is even more interesting. Avalokiteshvara means "He who looks down with compassion." Here is a painting of him from the Ajanta Caves in India:

http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws...84217/png/bodhisattva_ajanta1349742611561.png

Note that the lack of bone and muscle structure, combined with his compassionate pose tends to make him look effeminate. Indians didn't find bone and muscle structure attractive so they made their figures more rounded. It is not just Westerners who found image of this Bodhisatva as effeminate, so did the Chinese, so much so that over time Avalokiteshvara came to be combined with the Chinese goddess of wisdom, Kuan Yin. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/kuan-yin-statue-10853276.jpg

 

[ananda]

The laughing god is a depiction of a fusion between a Chan monk and Maitreya (the future Buddha) ... this is the first time I've heard that he represented Amitabha.

 

[smaneck]

The laughing god is a depiction of a fusion between a Chan monk and Maitreya (the future Buddha) ... this is the first time I've heard that he represented Amitabha.

Oops, you're right. It is Maitreya.

 

[Yoder777]

The laughing god is a depiction of a fusion between a Chan monk and Maitreya (the future Buddha) ... this is the first time I've heard that he represented Amitabha.

Where does the idea come from that Budai represents Amitabha?

 

[Yoder777]

There are two major families of religions in the world, Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, while the Dharmic religions are composed of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Between the two, Abrahamic or Dharmic, which has been responsible for more violence and suffering in this world? Let's please be honest.

I am not claiming that members of Eastern religions have never committed violence in the name of their faith, but has it ever been on the same scale as Abrahamic religious violence? Claiming that Christians who kill in the name of Christ are not true Christians doesn't work as a historical argument, especially considering that the God of the Bible tells the Israelites to kill entire Gentile villages, including infant children, among other violent passages throughout the Bible.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd say Panentheism .

.

Possibly.

I said pantheism because he describes this as an "essence to the universe", not something that extends beyond the universe.

Perhaps our helpful resident Buddhist will chime in with his own opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


eudaimonia,

Mark