Non-theism eh?

[SageTree]

Hello my Friends,

During a private talk with a member here I was asked about God and Buddhism. It's something I kinda of decided to 'Let it Be' and at some point was inspired further by t this story:

A man went to the Buddha insisting on answers to these questions, but the Buddha instead put a question to him: "If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"
"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance."
Life does not depend on the knowing how we got here or what will happen after we are gone. Whether we hold these views about these things or not, there is still suffering, sorrow, old age, sickness, and death.

So from time to time I read a little, and since I was prompted I found an interesting article when searching "Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta", since I feel that the later most closely identify with my idea of 'God', should I say to some one, 'this is basically it' and I might add a 'verbness' clause at the end.

Anyways.... I was asking, I read this article and came across the term 'non-theist'. And I was wondering what anyone thought about this, but since it was specific to Buddhism to me I thought I would lay this out for the fellow Sangha to comment on.

I don't agree with all the ways Buddhism is described and there seems to be a Abrahamic-bias to "god" in the writing, but sways back and forth into neutral ground enough to enjoy.

The dichotomy of the 'by god' 'for god' and 'with god' didn't quite click for me, but I had an interesting thought on theist, atheist, agnostic, non-theist.

In the same order it could be.

Yes there is God
No there isn't God/ Doesn't consider it
There may or may not be a God/ How can I know it?
I don't need to know.

Thanks for taking the time to read the article below and letting me share in this special place where we soooo many of us can come to talk, get to know one another and deep our Path.

:namaste
SageTree

PS: I must preface all of this with the two truths doctrine in mind.
Relative Truths for talking/ Absolute Truth through Experiencing.

So this is my humble offering to you all, since this is my first bearing of my 'self' here to you all, in as much as to, 'the way I see it', I wished to give you a preface for which all my opinions flow. Words are taking a whack at it, but I am open to hear what you feel a label means

__/\__

 

[SageTree]

In Metta....

Theism, Atheism and Non-Theism in Buddhism
By Saberi Roy


There are several opinions on the theistic status of Buddhism with the descriptions of Buddhism ranging from atheistic, non theistic to theistic. The fundamental philosophy of Buddhism seems to deny the concept of a personal God, although it is controversial whether Buddhism denies an impersonal form of God. Buddhist scholar Nyanaponika Thera1 suggested that conceptions of impersonal godhead such as world soul are excluded from Buddhism and this has been explained on teachings related to unsubstantiality or non-self. Despite this, Buddhism does provide an exposition on different higher and lower realms of existence even though the focus is on impermanence. That way Buddhism could be described as pantheism associated with all forms of existence. Considering a pantheist explanation, which is highly probable in Buddhist philosophy, Buddhism could be considered as theistic instead of atheistic. In a review article on the work of W.C. Smith, Robert Florida2 pointed out that Smith argued that Buddhists do believe in God. Smith of course, takes a broader view of what it means to be an atheist and suggests that an atheist has lost all hope and has no sense of justice, truth or beauty. Smith may have stretched the definition of atheism a bit too far, which should strictly mean, ‘no belief in God or no belief that God or gods exist’. Smith argues for a theistic basis of Buddhism considering the Buddhist concepts of nirvana and the concept of dharma as parallel to the Western concept of God or divinity3 .
Mahayana Buddhism went a bit further by accepting Buddha as the God and William James4 has pointed out that Buddha himself standing as God as accepted by some Buddhist followers suggests that Buddhism is atheistic5 . However this again is a problematic argument as accepting Buddha as God could mean that Buddhism is theistic and atheistic at the same time! Yet Mahayana Buddhism is a later version of Buddhism and the Theravada school still follows the teachings of Buddha in its essence6 . Some scholars have used the term ‘non-theistic’ to define Buddhism as atheism could mean a wider range of vices and theism is too focused on God and especially the concept of a personal God. In the West, the concept of God, largely framed by Christianity is a personal concept representing a super human being. This is largely against the spirit of Buddhism which emphasizes karma or an individual’s own actions. Divine control or providence, according to Buddhism can easily suggest that individuals are not responsible for their moral or ethical actions and this would be bad for moral development of human beings7 . Some scholars have suggested that God in Buddhism simply means enlightened beings or Buddhas rather than any other supreme being, so individuals are capable of gaining Buddhahood when they achieve true enlightenment and impart the knowledge to others. Buddhism through the ages has worshipped many such gradations of Buddha despite the fact that there is no belief of God in Buddhism. The focus is on personal karma, or one’s own actions rather than being overtly dependent on God, and also one’s efforts towards nirvana or enlightenment and the emphasis is also on jnana through meditative reflection and striving towards higher refinement of consciousness, salvation and deliverance 8. The main reason for which Buddha wanted to avoid God seems to be an emphasis on one’s own moral efforts and strife or aims towards moral and spiritual fulfillment. By eschewing the idea of God, individuals take more personal moral responsibility for their actions and thus Buddhism is about independence and attaining morality not by praying or dependence on divine providence but by one’s own efforts and actions. The ultimate goal is to attain salvation through constant efforts, morally correct behavior and meditation.
Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta may be completely different schools and one opposed the other vehemently with Buddha excluding all unsubtantiality from his discussion, yet they have at least something in common as both Advaita and Buddhism directed attention towards the individual and the individual is central or at the core of the moral philosophy of both the religions. Although Buddhism could be considered as more ‘politically correct’ and pragmatic that it kept away from all things that we don’t know about such as illusion or maya or world-soul etc, Advaita provided a more comprehensive explanation of God as present in the individual, an emphasis again common in both the philosophical positions. The moral strength of the individual is important in both the systems and also a pantheistic approach to the question of God, with God as also found in humanity and the individual is present in both the religions. Thus both Buddhism and Advaita are individualistic philosophies, almost comparable to an individualistic psychology9 where the focus is on what level of spiritual progress an individual can attain through his personal efforts. Yet Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have basic differences as Buddhism is pluralistic and Advaita is monistic. According to Advaita everything is the Brahman which is non dualistic and consciousness encompassing the entire universe. In Buddhism, the subjective-objective divide is blurred and the identity of the self remains undefined and merely represented by the senses. Yet Advaita postulates that the whole universe is the self and the distinction between the universe and the self is also blurred in this case. Thus to summarize, both Buddhism and Advaita are pantheistic and individualistic, both recognizes the primacy of the self and the close relation between the subjective and the objective. Yet Advaita defines all pluralities in terms of the self or a monistic philosophy of the self as in essence the whole of the universe whereas Buddhism postulates the self as without identity and probably represented by a plurality of senses, so pluralities are defined in terms of the self in Buddhism, a diametrically opposite philosophical position when compared with Advaita Vedanta.

 

[SageTree]

....continued

Considering the arguments that scholars provide on whether Buddhism is theistic, atheistic or non-theistic, compatible explanations could be provided for all these three philosophical positions. Buddhism has been argued as perfectly theistic simply because it is based on the notion of nirvana and dharma and is thus guided by a moral law, and a focus on moral law is the basis of all religions. Morality is about doing what is right and ethical for the sake of spiritual evolution and in so far as Buddhism emphasizes attaining enlightenment and teaching the same to others, Buddhism is theistic as it focuses on the same core of moral and spiritual development that forms the basis of theism or all religious systems. Buddhism is also theistic as it could be described as a sort of pantheism with the blurred distinction of the subject and the object and the subject being represented by pluralities. However the distinct and intentional avoidance of a creator God, perhaps to dodge the God related questions, brings out the more pragmatic and almost political approach of Buddhism. By denying or de-emphasizing the role of God, Buddha has managed to make religion less deterministic and infused a sense of responsibility in the karmic contribution of the individual. The no-God formula definitely makes Buddhism atheistic in a certain way and it is compatible with Buddha’s emphasis on individual striving for enlightenment by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold path of righteousness. Yet the whole emphasis on righteousness undermines any atheistic undertone that Buddhist philosophy may portray. This is the main reason for which many scholars try to maintain a balance and remain non-committal to either side of the debate suggesting that Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic but simply non-theistic. Non-theism is the in-between position between atheism and theism. It does not carry all the negative implications of atheism and yet carries with it the theistic emphasis on moral value. Maybe, non-theism is a more moderate and better word to describe Buddhism yet it is also inadequate as Buddhism does embody not just a part of theism or atheism that non-theism would imply, but Buddhism seems to encompass nearly all or most of theism and atheism. This is the problem in trying to define, categorize or pin down Buddhism, it seems to be both theistic and atheistic at the same time. Of course, in a way, the different schools or divisions of Buddhism adds to this confusion as Mahayana is more theistic and Theravada is atheistic. Yet, it can be said that Buddhism is theistic in its essence and atheistic in its approach, theistic in theory and atheistic in practice and even theistic in its goal and atheistic in its philosophical position.
Buddhism remains completely opposite to Christianity in its de-emphasis of a creator God but its moral basis remains similar and compatible with all religions. Its philosophical denial or avoidance of God issues brings it closest to monistic religions of the east, including the Advaita Vedanta although at the same time places it exactly opposite to such religions as Buddhism is finally about striving to attain perfection ‘for God’ rather than ‘with God’ as in Advaita Vedanta or ‘by God’ as in Islam or Christianity. So, ultimately humans have a goal to attain enlightenment and perfection through nirvana and meditation but we do this for our purpose of reaching Godhood which is essential in Advaita and in Buddhism, yet unlike Advaita, Buddhism does not see God as inherently merged in the self and consciousness10 and representing the entire universe at the same time yet the concept of enlightenment/nirvana in Buddhism as is Moksha/liberation in Advaita, are similar and the self is able to reach perfection and an ideal condition through practice. Scholar David Loy11 however suggested in his book and papers that the difference between Moksha in Advaita and Nirvana in Buddhism is that of perspective as the Buddhist explanation and approach towards Nirvana is more phenomenological and experiential and the Vedantist explanation towards Moksha is objective as Moksha is about detachment, taking a view from outside the illusion of reality. Advaita Vedanta emphasizes on an objective reality and Buddhism adopts a subjective reality.
Thus it can be suggested that Buddhism is a more practice based rather than a theory based religion and although it is in practice atheistic, it is completely theistic in its theory and aim. In fact, the theism-atheism-nontheism perspectives of Buddhism aid in emphasizing the role of the individual making Buddhism a deeply subjective and almost individualistic or psychological religion.

 

[Smoke]

Some scholars have used the term ‘non-theistic’ to define Buddhism as atheism could mean a wider range of vices

Non-theism is the in-between position between atheism and theism. It does not carry all the negative implications of atheism and yet carries with it the theistic emphasis on moral value.

I think in general when people say they're non-theists, what they're saying is that they're not committed to an atheistic position, or they're not "hard" atheists. They're saying that they don't find theism useful, but don't want to be drawn into discussions about whether God exists or not. In effect, they're saying, "Let's just set 'God' off to the side, out of the way, but let's not waste time arguing about it."

You seem to be associating atheism with "vice" and theism with "moral value," which is an association that makes no sense to me. What do you imagine the "negative implications of atheism" to be?

So, ultimately humans have a goal to attain enlightenment and perfection through nirvana and meditation but we do this for our purpose of reaching Godhood which is essential in Advaita and in Buddhism

I disagree emphatically. The "purpose of reaching Godhood" is not essential in Buddhism. It is not even compatible with Buddhism.

Thus it can be suggested that Buddhism is a more practice based rather than a theory based religion and although it is in practice atheistic, it is completely theistic in its theory and aim.

There is no god in the Four Noble Truths. There is no god in the Noble Eightfold Path. Buddhism is completely atheistic -- or non-theistic, if you prefer -- in its theory and aim. God is completely irrelevant to Buddhism. This is so obvious that I think you must mean something completely different by "God" than what I mean, or what Westerners or even most Hindus generally mean by "God."

I can understand using "God" as a metaphor; in fact, I can't understand any concept of "God" that is not metaphorical. The question is whether "God" is a useful metaphor in the context of Buddhism. Some Buddhists, obviously, feel that it is. I disagree. At least, I think it's an unfortunate choice of metaphor. A Buddhist talking about "God" cannot possibly mean what the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Hindus mean by "God," and it seems to me that it's confusing and misleading to pretend otherwise.

It's like a barefoot person talking to booted people about boots. "Yes, I have boots, too. Boots are very important important to me. I don't know how I'd get along without my boots. I try to take good care of my boots. I clean them every day, and I rub them with oils to help them stay in good condition. If they get any tears, cuts, or abrasions, I do my best to clean and mend them. Respect for boots and the appreciation of boots is a big part of my life." But he never says, "Boots is what I call my feet." He allows his hearers to imagine that he's talking about -- well, boots. It seems unnecessarily obscure, and even dishonest.

 

[Storm]

Crap, DIR.

Sorry, folks.

 

[SageTree]

heh... I just want to make it clear I was sharing something I read... most of what you quoted weren't my words. I was asking about 'non-theism' and what people felt about it according to their own beliefs or if something came up reading the article.

I appreciate your kinds words and thoughts on what the author had to say and I enjoyed the boots metaphor.

fyi My words are in the first post and kind of touch on what I think about the article. Sorry if that was in the wrong order of posting.

Anyways.... I was asking, I read this article and came across the term 'non-theist'. And I was wondering what anyone thought about this, but since it was specific to Buddhism to me I thought I would lay this out for the fellow Sangha to comment on.

:namaste

 

[SageTree]

That's not my position at all. I'm just fussy about precise terminology.

I'm a non-theist because I don't believe in a supernatural Creator-type God. I still believe in God and will happily defend my case, given a respectful setting.

PS: I must preface all of this with the two truths doctrine in mind.
Relative Truths for talking/ Absolute Truth through Experiencing.

So this is my humble offering to you all, since this is my first bearing of my 'self' here to you all, in as much as to, 'the way I see it', I wished to give you a preface for which all my opinions flow. Words are taking a whack at it, but I am open to hear what you feel a label means

I think the two truths link will help you understand what I mean by relative truth. In other words, I understand we are all just using labels and what we know to talk about what we don't. So please take a whack at it and I will by all means report posts that are out of line in a post I created.... not to play 'god' or anything hahaha

 

[Storm]

I think the two truths link will help you understand what I mean by relative truth. In other words, I understand we are all just using labels and what we know to talk about what we don't. So please take a whack at it and I will by all means report posts that are out of line in a post I created.... not to play 'god' or anything hahaha

Oh, I was just going off on a tangent, sorry.

 

[SageTree]

Oh I got it, if you wanted to talk about it you would in a safe place. I was seeing that as you would talk here if it was safe.

Either way...

 

[Storm]

I didn't notice it was in the DIR, my apologies.

 

[SageTree]

What was DIR stand for?

I personally as asking Buddhist because that is how I relate, but I feel that its perfectly fine and well to share with us still, because you are part of 'us' even though out labels are skewed. And hey, you're UU, so it's practically like we have a family tie here

 

[Storm]

What was DIR stand for?

Discuss Individual Religions.
From the forum rules:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums
The DIR forums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. Only posts that comply with the tenets or spirit of that DIR are permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.

So, I shouldn't have offered my opinion at all.

I personally as asking Buddhist because that is how I relate, but I feel that its perfectly fine and well to share with us still, because you are part of 'us' even though out labels are skewed. And hey, you're UU, so it's practically like we have a family tie here

The sentiment is appreciated, but the rules disagree. :hug:

 

[Smoke]

heh... I just want to make it clear I was sharing something I read... most of what you quoted weren't my words. I was asking about 'non-theism' and what people felt about it according to their own beliefs or if something came up reading the article.

I appreciate your kinds words and thoughts on what the author had to say and I enjoyed the boots metaphor.

fyi My words are in the first post and kind of touch on what I think about the article. Sorry if that was in the wrong order of posting.

You're right, I misunderstood completely. :foot:

I stand by my comments, but I'm glad that most of what I was commenting on wasn't yours.

 

[SageTree]

:namaste

I still appreciate your sentiments

Thanks

 

[Smoke]

Crap, DIR.

Sorry, folks.

You can usually get away with more in the Buddhist DIR than in some of the others.

But I want you to elaborate, so I've started a new thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/102317-storms-non-theism-not-debate-thread.html

 

[Metempsychosis]

So this is my humble offering to you all, since this is my first bearing of my 'self' here to you all, in as much as to, 'the way I see it', I wished to give you a preface for which all my opinions flow. Words are taking a whack at it, but I am open to hear what you feel a label means

__/\__

I am not completely satisfied with Buddhist solution through the doctrine of poison arrow ,which is not quite reasonable for me :

For example I might ask:

What if the person shoots another arrow at the doctor who pulls out the arrow.So,the question of how/why the samsara/dukka occurs to a living being remains unsolved.

Advaita too takes similar stance like Buddhism in this regard.

So from time to time I read a little, and since I was prompted I found an interesting article when searching "Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta", since I feel that the later most closely identify with my idea of 'God', should I say to some one, 'this is basically it' and I might add a 'verbness' clause at the end.

Theism/Non-theist requires Buddhism to define God,which it fails to do.So,it is impossible to put Buddhism in any of these categories.
God in advaita includes everything and everything beyond...So there in no question of something that is not "in God".Which to me means,there is no point describing or defining "god",as everything is the "Self".

It is important to note that both Buddhism and advaita take polar opposites in "expressing" somewhat similar mystical experiences."The two truth " doctrine is also there in advaita(vyaharika-- phenomenal ,paramarthika --absolute ).

AFAIK,both buddhism and advaita use "no-self" and "all-self" at several places.
I tend to agree with the Taoist view,which falls mid-way between both these traditions.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings.
We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.


See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.


When the ancient Masters said,
"If you want to be given everything,
give everything up,"
they weren't using empty phrases.
Their wisdom was unfathomable.
There is no way to describe it;
all we can describe is their appearance.
---Tao te ching

 

[Twilight Hue]

I sometimes wonder as to why this particular subject needs to come up so much among Buddhists, yet it is human nature to wonder about such things all the same. Buddhist or not.

In some respects I can see and understand as to why Buddhism can be viewed by some as a form of "pantheism" due to the obvious fact that the universe is not completely comprised of what we regard as dead matter. So in that respect it is understandable in that a symbolic reference to God is used from time to time, albeit not independently as any sort of Deity that can be directly communicated and reasoned with as such, and so forth. I still remember during my personal transition in which I incrementally dropped theism as my increasing interest in Buddhism grew, of which in turn during the transition adopted a deist perspective for a time of which was eventually shelved altogether, and has since assumed an atheist/agnostic position.

I do think about this subject still in light that Brad Warner had professed a belief in God during a talk in regards to the relationship of Atheism and Buddhism, and noted some valid points regarding the make up of the universe and what is directly observed. I think I might on occasion use the term God myself from time to time solely for the fact that we as human beings can communicate very well with one another in the same vernacular as Brad and Carl Sagan does in which the universe has a way of getting to know "itself" but still remain careful in that "God" shouldn't be developed into something that its not. -NM-

 

[koan]

I was a Christian and very unhappy. I believed in God the creator and could never understand, Why, if one God could create everything, was there so much misery in the world?
I came into Buddhism (almost by accident), to discover myself and why, was I so unhappy(downright angry). After a some study, things began to fall into place. I realised, that, the mind is responsible for happiness, or sadness, for doing good things, or bad etc.
I also came to grasp, that if the mind is responible for pleasure and pain, then what about God? Then another realisation! If I think of God, there is God. If I don't think of God, where is God? So again, I realised that God was just something that one thinks about (even believes). Take that thought away though and there isn't any God.
I'm also a firm believer(knower, for better words), in Karma and dependent origination. In this, I am the creator of my own world, as you are the creator of yours. Maybe this is what is meant by, God is everything. Which if, is the case, I am God and you are God.
To Quote the Beatles, "I am he, as you are he, and we are all together." I am the Walrus.:band:

 

[SageTree]

Thanks everyone for your answers.

I feel like some people are talking to me specifically and I want to say again, besides what I put in the first post, that article is just something I wanted to share to get some conversation happening.

So what do you think the best label would be for "I don't need to know." in relation to the god question. That is how non-theism would strike me, but there are people who are connected with the label who might feel that isn't how they describe their idea of it.

 

[SageTree]

Crap, DIR.

Sorry, folks.

This actually made me decide to ask this to be moved to General debate, because I'm more interested in it from philosophy stand point over the religious implications to Buddhism, specifically.

:namaste
SageTree