Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Yoder777]

That's even more diverse than I'd encountered, though I was aware of at least some of the items mentioned. The comments following the article are even more revealing. The term "Buddhism" is an umbrella term not adequately coping with incredibly varied sets of beliefs and practices (see also Hinduism, where also "all paths lead" and "only this way" proponents can be found)

The diversity in Buddhism is explained by the doctrine of expedient means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

 

[Chris B]

The diversity in Buddhism is explained by the doctrine of expedient means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

I can see how that might work in the ideal, and if the Buddhist perspective is in fact correct, but it is dangerous, dangerous, in its potential to do harm in more than one direction.

Tailored Christianity to suit an audience, or watered-down Christianity?
Simpler messages in gnosticism for the many, but the higher truths allowed to but a few...
Anything can be said if it leads "the people" in the right direction, as determined by their elders and betters?
(On the unstated assumption that the elders and betters are not in the slightest mistaken.)
Echoes of 1984 and Brave New World, both.

The "useful" untruth has no built in regulator to limit it to white lies
(and who gets to determine "white", anyway? Generally the teller, not the person lied to.)
No, I'm not saying the concept can't be used well, rightly and properly...
But it's all too easy to slip from that standard for the best and worst of reasons.
I'd suggest anyone who cites Upaya easily shouldn't be allowed near it.

Chris.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I am not assigning human qualities to the universe at large, but I do acknowledge that homo sapiens (and other biological life) is part of the same, and as such the universe IS expressing empathy (in the form of us, and other lifeforms capable of such sentiments).

My own point of view corresponds to Buddhism on many levels, including the observation that the "self" is a temporary construct and a series of actions rather than a numinous essence.
However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Also, I've got the impression that the religions (or traditions within the same) that hold the most "mass-appeal" also tend to be the most regressive, substituting a quest for true (self-)knowledge with parental authority figures.

 

[LynnC]

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?

Greetings,
I find this to be in keeping with what Yshwe(known as Jesus) taught... or tried to teach...

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

I tend to believe that we are to look inside ourselves to find the 'essence', the 'power', of 'God'. I believe all lifeforce to be energy force, and so I guess I believe the 'punishments' and 'rewards' of 'God' tend to be the results of certain types of energy that we put forth... thus the reason I believe that 'God' is 'Love'. The ultimate goal is to learn to love... to teach to love. It was the greatest 'commandment of God'...
'Love God(or goodness) above all else, and love one another as better than self'
Then we may achieve peace in the world... Nirvana.
When we all have learned this lesson, then evil will be defeated...
then Messiah will have come.
I still believe in the Christian teaching to get there...
that Yshwe is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life'.
He is the One that leads us to the eternal power... to the Creator... to the beginning... 'Alpha and Omega'... 'beginning and end'.

 

[ananda]

Also, I've got the impression that the religions (or traditions within the same) that hold the most "mass-appeal" also tend to be the most regressive, substituting a quest for true (self-)knowledge with parental authority figures.

This is one reason I chose early Buddhism as my primary path ... Buddha stated "be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge" (DN 16)

 

[Chris B]

My own point of view corresponds to Buddhism on many levels, including the observation that the "self" is a temporary construct and a series of actions rather than a numinous essence.

I arrive there on "self" with what (approximately) is existentialist humanism.
We have out few hours on stage or in the sun, and we can make something of that, and help facilitate other people's turn, too.

However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.

Agreed. How can an ice-cream be enjoyed unless it is consumed. And then it is gone. But my life* is the better for having and having had that ephemeral experience in it.


*in the scale of eternity or any approximations such as geological ages, yes, my life is ephemeral. But that's hardly going to bother me, is it, If i only live as long as I live?

 

[ananda]

However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.

Temporary pleasure and joys which leads to long-term suffering in this world is meant to drive us to seek and find the extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace.

 

[Chris B]

Temporary pleasure and joys which leads to long-term suffering in this world is meant to drive us to seek and find the extra-world state of permanent bliss and peace.

What are these temporary joys that lead to long-term suffering? I can think of a few, but i can also think of many temporary pleasures and joys which do not lead to suffering.
And at the other end of the scale I can think of a few things that are worth risking or enduring suffering for.

And then there is the possibility that this proposed eternal blissful state does not exist.
I've considered it and can't see that it's a "given". Particularly growing out of the associated handling of "suffering."
Chris.

 

[Sean611]

Eh, I've always found Deism to far more appealing than Buddhism. With Deism you have plenty of wiggle room and it's rooted in natural law, logic, and reason, yet none of the cultural superstitions/baggage of Buddhism. If I stopped being a Christian, I would definitely return to Deism.

 

[ananda]

What are these temporary joys that lead to long-term suffering? I can think of a few, but i can also think of many temporary pleasures and joys which do not lead to suffering.

The fact that temporary joys ends causes suffering, whether on a significant or latent level, eventually and inevitably driving someone find another "fix" of joy. What temporary pleasures or joys do not lead to suffering?

And at the other end of the scale I can think of a few things that are worth risking or enduring suffering for.

I don't disagree that there are things worth suffering for. I am merely stating that after one experiences suffering, one seeks out joys and pleasures in compensation. Two different things.

 

[ananda]

Eh, I've always found Deism to far more appealing than Buddhism. With Deism you have plenty of wiggle room and it's rooted in natural law, logic, and reason, yet none of the cultural superstitions/baggage of Buddhism. If I stopped being a Christian, I would definitely return to Deism.

I agree, many different sects of Buddhism possess plenty of cultural superstitions and baggage that are unnecessary and actually incompatible with the original teachings of the Buddha.

 

[smaneck]

However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.

Actually that is the second Noble Truth. The cause of suffering is desire. We either want what we don't have or we want to keep what we do have.

All we are is dust in the wind.

 

[Aidan K]

Is this the same as the love of money being the root of all evil?

 

[ananda]

Actually that is the second Noble Truth. The cause of suffering is desire. We either want what we don't have or we want to keep what we do have.

... or, desire to get rid of what we don't like.

 

[Yoder777]

I don't want this to turn into a debate, so I am not responding to posts that clearly reflect a lack of understanding on Buddhism. If you have any questions on what Pure Land Buddhists believe and why, I would be happy to answer them. Pure Land happens to be the most commonly practiced form of Mahayana Buddhism. If Mahayana is somehow a corrupt form of Buddhism, how can one be sure that Theravada didn't corrupt the Buddha's teachings either?

My grades just came in and I earned a 3.8 for the quarter. Having recently moved with my wife and kids to a new city, taking classes that were harder than expected and almost failing halfway through the quarter, and undergoing immense financial distress, I sincerely believe that studying Buddhism as a path to inner peace is what kept me from flying off the cliff. The light of Amida Buddha shines on the pure and the wicked, so we may all be enlightened.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am not assigning human qualities to the universe at large, but I do acknowledge that homo sapiens (and other biological life) is part of the same, and as such the universe IS expressing empathy (in the form of us, and other lifeforms capable of such sentiments).

My own point of view corresponds to Buddhism on many levels, including the observation that the "self" is a temporary construct and a series of actions rather than a numinous essence.
However, I cannot relate to Buddhism's bleak view on existence and temporary pleasure. To me, the problem is NOT that things are fleeting - it's that we are expecting them NOT to be.

I think that's technically the general Buddhist position: things being transient in themselves isn't wrong or good, it's just how things are. The major problem is our response to that, deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise.

 

[muichimotsu]

Eh, I've always found Deism to far more appealing than Buddhism. With Deism you have plenty of wiggle room and it's rooted in natural law, logic, and reason, yet none of the cultural superstitions/baggage of Buddhism. If I stopped being a Christian, I would definitely return to Deism.

I leaned to Deism when I was skeptical of my native Christian faith I was raised in. But I found that I was still dependent on this God to explain things when I wasn't necessary or even practical, since you're answering one mystery with another.

Deists likely have beliefs regarding church/state separation I'd agree with, but using natural theology and such to rationalize a creator that only has relevance in the cosmological issue of origins is something that could be done with pantheism just as well without involving a conscious mind in the slightest. The core problem is invoking the creator as the solution, when that's a solution of expediency more than efficiency.

 

[muichimotsu]

Is this the same as the love of money being the root of all evil?

To say something is the root of all evil would have to be more wide range than just money. I'd say desire for power is the root of all evil, though one can just as easily reduce it to desire gone rampant if we're going to still qualify that desire in itself isn't bad, strictly speaking.

 

[smaneck]

If Mahayana is somehow a corrupt form of Buddhism, how can one be sure that Theravada didn't corrupt the Buddha's teachings either?

We can't. The truth is we know far too little about the historical Buddha, less than we do about Christ or Confucius, far less than we do about Muhammad. Fortunately tying Buddhism back to the historical Buddha is far less important than it is for either Christ or Muhammad where the kergyma (message) is far more intimately tied to the historicity of the events it is based upon. The various forms Buddhism can be judged solely on the basis of the content of their doctrines.