Exploring Buddhism

[firedragon]

Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system. No God's but a way of life. In Hinduism they ranked Buddhism as another Hindu philosophy but Nasthika or Atheistic. Buddhism and Jainism were both put in this category. Using the word Atheistic does not mean it's actually Atheistic. They are not atheists by definition. Just that, Nasthika means the opposite of "God exists".

The thing with this categorization of Buddhism is that written in the Tipitaka are many Gods and divine beings. Like Chathummaharajika Deva. Meaning four+great+kings+God or God of the 4 great kings. This is mentioned in the Great sutta of enlightenment. I might have the reference wrong. Included in the many Gods and divine beings are Yama, Mara, Brahma, and Indra or Sakka.

The concept of Buddhism is not like the Abrahamic religions withe some concept behind one God, but it's very much a theistic religion if you consider the existence God's and Deva's. I don't know how many Buddhists believe it's theism but many I have met truly believe it's very much a naturalistic philosophy.

Is it? What's your view?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system. No God's but a way of life. In Hinduism they ranked Buddhism as another Hindu philosophy but Nasthika or Atheistic. Buddhism and Jainism were both put in this category. Using the word Atheistic does not mean it's actually Atheistic. They are not atheists by definition. Just that, Nasthika means the opposite of "God exists".

The thing with this categorization of Buddhism is that written in the Tipitaka are many Gods and divine beings. Like Chathummaharajika Deva. Meaning four+great+kings+God or God of the 4 great kings. This is mentioned in the Great sutta of enlightenment. I might have the reference wrong. Included in the many Gods and divine beings are Yama, Mara, Brahma, and Indra or Sakka.

The concept of Buddhism is not like the Abrahamic religions withe some concept behind one God, but it's very much a theistic religion if you consider the existence God's and Deva's. I don't know how many Buddhists believe it's theism but many I have met truly believe it's very much a naturalistic philosophy.

Is it? What's your view?

Theistic Buddhism is basically Hinduism gussied up in Buddhist drag.

There are no gods in Buddhism, but there are a lot of metaphors and imagery such as those found in Pure Land Buddhism for example.

Major schools such as Theravada and Zen contain no formal recognition of any God or gods for that matter.

 

[firedragon]

Theistic Buddhism is basically Hinduism gussied up in Buddhist drag.

There are no gods in Buddhism, but there are a lot of metaphors and imagery such as those found in Pure Land Buddhism for example.

Major schools such as Theravada and Zen contain no formal recognition of any God or gods for that matter.

Refer to the OP. It speaks of the Tipitaka. If you think the Tipitaka is irrelevant to Buddhism, then it's your prerogative. I don't think you read the OP.

 

[LuisDantas]

Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system.

Nope.

Using your apparent perspective, it is actually a apatheistic Dharma (not quite a "belief system").

BTW, "atheism" is not all that meaningful a term outside of Abrahamic expectations.

No God's but a way of life.

A Dharma. "Way of life" can be anything - and usually is.

(...) Just that, Nasthika means the opposite of "God exists".

That is, at best, sort-of-accurate under certain specific circunstances.

The categories of "Asthika" and "Nasthika" have little to do with the Deva and much less with the Gods of Ibrahim. They correspond much better to the words "orthodox" and "heterodox", and are defined mainly in relation to acknowledgment of the Veda (not the Deva).

The thing with this categorization of Buddhism is that written in the Tipitaka are many Gods and divine beings. Like Chathummaharajika Deva. Meaning four+great+kings+God or God of the 4 great kings. This is mentioned in the Great sutta of enlightenment. I might have the reference wrong. Included in the many Gods and divine beings are Yama, Mara, Brahma, and Indra or Sakka.

Yep. The Tipitaka is aware of the Hindu Deva, as one would expect.

The concept of Buddhism is not like the Abrahamic religions withe some concept behind one God, but it's very much a theistic religion if you consider the existence God's and Deva's.

If the specific Buddhist is so inclined, which is both possible and much less encouraged than in the Abrahamics.

And even that, if you want to treat the Gods of Ibrahim as somewhat comparable to the Devas. A common but unfortunate choice IMO.

I don't know how many Buddhists believe it's theism but many I have met truly believe it's very much a naturalistic philosophy.

Is it? What's your view?

Dharma is Dharma.

 

[LuisDantas]

Theistic Buddhism is basically Hinduism gussied up in Buddhist drag.

You mean "Buddhism resembles Advaita in some respects, and other Hindu sects in others".

There are no gods in Buddhism, but there are a lot of metaphors and imagery such as those found in Pure Land Buddhism for example.

Major schools such as Theravada and Zen contain no formal recognition of any God or gods for that matter.

What is a god? Anything. It is the ultimate freeform concept. It can be equal, comparable and/or entirely different from anything else that someone might see fit to call a god.

 

[firedragon]

The categories of "Asthika" and "Nasthika" have little to do with the Deva and much less with the Gods of Ibrahim. They correspond much better to the words "orthodox" and "heterodox", and are defined mainly in relation to acknowledgment of the Veda (not the Deva).

Nastika Vada or Atheism and Materialism in Hinduism and Related Religions

This essay is about the influence of the Nastika Vada or the schools of materialism and atheism of ancient India in the development of India’s major religions, especially Hinduism..

www.hinduwebsite.com

And even that, if you want to treat the Gods of Ibrahim as somewhat comparable to the Devas.

Never did.

Dharma is Dharma.

Very good.

 

[Spice]

You mean "Buddhism resembles Advaita in some respects, and other Hindu sects in others".
What is a god? Anything. It is the ultimate freeform concept. It can be equal, comparable and/or entirely different from anything else that someone might see fit to call a god.

My very limited understanding of Buddhism is that it does not deny deities, but it also does not worship them as Buddhism is to focus on this life journey and achieving the highest level of life, Nirvana. Would that be in the correct ballpark of understanding?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You mean "Buddhism resembles Advaita in some respects, and other Hindu sects in others".




What is a god? Anything. It is the ultimate freeform concept. It can be equal, comparable and/or entirely different from anything else that someone might see fit to call a god.

That's true I'm only referencing God in its popular general use of the word.

 

[LuisDantas]

My very limited understanding of Buddhism is that it does not deny deities, but it also does not worship them as Buddhism is to focus on this life journey and achieving the highest level of life, Nirvana. Would that be in the correct ballpark of understanding?

That is why I call it apatheistic.

The Devas are not all that similar in role to the Abrahamic gods to begin with (a fact that keeps confusing Abrahamic-taught expectations worldwide), and their role is hardly constant and homogeneous inside Hinduism, let alone after the transition to Buddhism.

Quite a few Buddhist schools don't even use the Devas or other practice entities, while many others create some of their own.

To call them "gods" serves no purpose other to seed confusion and misunderstanding.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's true I'm only referencing God in its popular general use of the word.

Which is almost entirely Abrahamic in its parameters and expectations, alas.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system. No God's but a way of life. In Hinduism they ranked Buddhism as another Hindu philosophy but Nasthika or Atheistic. Buddhism and Jainism were both put in this category. Using the word Atheistic does not mean it's actually Atheistic. They are not atheists by definition. Just that, Nasthika means the opposite of "God exists".

From the discussions I've had with Hindus, while most were polythiests, monotheistic Hindus and atheist Hindus also existed. It became clear to me at that point that Hinduism wasn't a single religion, but rather a collection of those religions native to India.

Saying "atheistic" doesn't mean "atheistic" makes no logical sense. X always equals X.

The concept of Buddhism is not like the Abrahamic religions withe some concept behind one God, but it's very much a theistic religion if you consider the existence God's and Deva's. I don't know how many Buddhists believe it's theism but many I have met truly believe it's very much a naturalistic philosophy.

Yeap. Some Buddhists have no god, others have many. The godless version of Buddhism is far more common among Americans, but go elsewhere in the world, and you'll find Buddhists with all sorts of idols on their altars.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system. No God's but a way of life. In Hinduism they ranked Buddhism as another Hindu philosophy but Nasthika or Atheistic. Buddhism and Jainism were both put in this category. Using the word Atheistic does not mean it's actually Atheistic. They are not atheists by definition. Just that, Nasthika means the opposite of "God exists".

The thing with this categorization of Buddhism is that written in the Tipitaka are many Gods and divine beings. Like Chathummaharajika Deva. Meaning four+great+kings+God or God of the 4 great kings. This is mentioned in the Great sutta of enlightenment. I might have the reference wrong. Included in the many Gods and divine beings are Yama, Mara, Brahma, and Indra or Sakka.

The concept of Buddhism is not like the Abrahamic religions withe some concept behind one God, but it's very much a theistic religion if you consider the existence God's and Deva's. I don't know how many Buddhists believe it's theism but many I have met truly believe it's very much a naturalistic philosophy.

Is it? What's your view?

Nastik is best translated as heterodox not 'atheistic'. It is not that Buddhists do not believe in Gods, but that they do not believe that Gods or worshipping them is necessary or important for achieving nirvana.

A very good book for comparing the two religions is by Coomarswamy (a Buddhist): Amazon.com

 

[dybmh]

What's your view?

My vote: buddhism is apatheistic. Gods and divine beings are completely irrelevant. However, the diversity of buddhism is vast. I've found that what each of the different groups do with the foundation that is laid by the buddha shakyamuni or guatama or amitabbah, etc... depends more on the group itself, their cultural roots, the needs and desires of the practitioners, etc...

in the Tipitaka are many Gods and divine beings

haven't read it, but, what is their significance in that book? IOW, what is important about gods and divine beings in the Tipitaka? What is the reason for their inclusion in that text?

 

[firedragon]

Nastik is best translated as heterodox not 'atheistic'.

Heterodox is no translation. It's a placeholder. There is nothing wrong with that. But the actual meaning of the word is "It does not exists/Non-believer". So heterodoxy is not a translation.

If you read the OP, you will see what I said clearly that it does not exactly mean atheist in other words.

 

[firedragon]

Saying "atheistic" doesn't mean "atheistic" makes no logical sense. X always equals X.

Now go to the OP again and read what I said.

Some Buddhists have no god, others have many.

If you read the OP, I was referring to the Tipitaka.

 

[firedragon]

My vote: buddhism is apatheistic.

I was referring to the Tipitaka. But thanks for your view. Appreciated.

haven't read it, but, what is their significance in that book? IOW, what is important about gods and divine beings in the Tipitaka?

Very important. Obviously not as important as the Buddha because it says "Anuththaro Purusa Dhamma Sarathi Sattha Dheva Manussanang, Buddho Bhagavathi". He is the unparalleled or never overtaken teacher of them who are possible to be taught. Teacher of "Gods and Humans". Attained the Buddha status. The blessed.

BUT, let's say "Maara". He is the God that represents desire and death. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this character in the Suttha Pitaka. Also one could talk about Sakka. The king of all Gods. He connects or interacts with the Buddha, as well as other beings.

The actual reason to include these God's I have no clue because I cannot read the writer's mind.

 

[sayak83]

Heterodox is no translation. It's a placeholder. There is nothing wrong with that. But the actual meaning of the word is "It does not exists/Non-believer". So heterodoxy is not a translation.

If you read the OP, you will see what I said clearly that it does not exactly mean atheist in other words.

Nastika means nonbeliever in the scriptural authority of the Vedas. Islam and Christianity are also Nastika.

 

[firedragon]

Nastika means nonbeliever in the scriptural authority of the Vedas. Islam and Christianity are also Nastika.

Absolutely. Obviously. That's the philosophical meaning.

This person was saying heterodox is the correct translation. So if you read my post you replied to properly you will probably understand what I am telling that person.

Cheers.

 

[dybmh]

I was referring to the Tipitaka. But thanks for your view. Appreciated.

The title of the thread is: "Exploring Buddhism"
The first sentence states: "Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system."

Hence my comment.

Very important. Obviously not as important as the Buddha because it says "Anuththaro Purusa Dhamma Sarathi Sattha Dheva Manussanang, Buddho Bhagavathi". He is the unparalleled or never overtaken teacher of them who are possible to be taught. Teacher of "Gods and Humans". Attained the Buddha status. The blessed.

Wait. In the sentence you quoted the Gods and the humans are equally significant?

BUT, let's say "Maara". He is the God that represents desire and death. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this character in the Suttha Pitaka. Also one could talk about Sakka. The king of all Gods. He connects or interacts with the Buddha, as well as other beings.

What is the impression this is making on the reader in the time and place in which it was authored. What is the reason for the inclusion of those stories? What is the take-away? What is the lesson which is being taught?

The actual reason to include these God's I have no clue because I cannot read the writer's mind.

You've never done literary analysis? It happens everyday of the week in academic settings across the world. No mind reading, just, people doing what they do.

You'll need to engage further in the text, take a risk, and try it, in order to answer these sort of questions. The reason literature ( and all art forms ) are compelling is because of the shared humanity and human experiences between the author and the audience. Great books and great pieces of art stand the test of time because the author's art speaks broadly to many and the "payload" so to speak is not bound by time.

You can do this, friend, if you try. I believe in you.

 

[firedragon]

The first sentence states: "Many think that Buddhism is an Atheistic type of belief system."

Hence my comment.

Yeah. Read it as a whole. Respond holistically.

Wait. In the sentence you quoted the Gods and the humans are equally significant?

No. You completely straw manned me.

What is the impression this is making on the reader in the time and place in which it was authored.

Bottomline is, the text speaks of many Gods. You missed the point for some reason.

I am not gonna respond to the rest of the post because it's absolutely irrelevant to the OP.