To what extent was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?

[Jim]

@adrian009 Incidentally, in case it isn’t obvious, I don’t identify as a theist.

 

[Samana Johann]

A wise man would instantly become no more than an arrogant fool if he believed he never needed to consult a dictionary.

Brahman Adrian, adherent of the low and deceitful God google,

Good that the Buddha didn't preach that ones liberation depends on Gods or creater and even a fool, if addressing wise, is capable to find the root of suffering, following his advices, within.
One who relays on defiled, does not get disenchanted toward of created, whould be able to find release. So of what benefit is it to consult those not free from defilments, full of desires and wrong views? Yet not even spoken of taking what is not given for ones release...

 

[dybmh]

You may want to check some ancient posts. @paarsurrey started quite a few threads along the years.

But I was not exaggerating or being selective at all when I said that it is an expected trait of Muslim posts about atheism. They are, quite literally, taught to call something that I do not expect to find in the real world by the name "atheism". I am not even quite sure what, but it is certainly not atheism as it actually exists.

It would be refreshing to find an counter-example, in all honesty.

It's not fair to judge paarsurey's current reply to this thread by what was written in "ancient posts".

I think you can agree; that's discouraging for those of us trying to learn.

Also, at this point, I have a good understanding of your issues with Islam and Muslims. Primary among them are the hostility towards other faiths and belief systems.

Please take a look at @paarsurrey's signature:

"Love for all. Hatred for none."

Isn't this the 100% opposite of how you define Islam? Regardless of what Islam actually is or actually teaches; this is a core principle that you **should** support. Hatred for none, Luis. That is something very special. Unconditional love.

The other thing I hope you will notice is that the 8 fold path and the Dao are represented in paarsurey's signature. This means, when he is speaking about Buddha, he might have authentic knowledge of Dharmic religions.

In America, there was a very dark time in our history. Black people were subjugated and treated like they were inherently inferior compared to white people. In this time in American history, in order to determine who is inferior many white people held the belief which is known as the "One-Drop-Rule". The idea was, that if a person had a single drop of "black blood" in their veins they were black and thus they were defined as inferior. Inferior because of a single drop of "black blood".

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - One-drop rule

Judging Paarsurey's reply to this this current thread, in the here and now, based on ancient posts is like judging a person's race based on the "One-drop-rule". So what if his ancient posts miss-spoke about Atheism? So what if he identifies as Islam? He clearly has deep respect and knowledge of other faiths as well. And isn't that more important than his religious label. A label is just a drop in the bucket. It is a single drop frozen in time. Please. Compare that single drop to the entire multi-dimensional person that is my friend, Paarsurey.

If what Paarsurey said in this thread deserved to be shot down because it miss-represented Atheism. Please, sir, help me avoid making that same mistake.

here is what I have so far to work with:

Sorry, paarsurrey, but in all frankness I do not expect a Muslim to have a functional understanding of non-theism.

it is just wrong. Starting with the implicit (and typically Muslims, alas) premise that atheism is something to be "connected with" or to "distance oneself from".

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 Incidentally, in case it isn’t obvious, I don’t identify as a theist.

LOL. Although you meet the dictionary definition of a theist you do not consider yourself a theist. I have no problem with that.

I consider myself a theism and am totally comfortable with the word.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Brahman Adrian, adherent of the low and deceitful God google,

Good that the Buddha didn't preach that ones liberation depends on Gods or creater and even a fool, if addressing wise, is capable to find the root of suffering, following his advices, within.
One who relays on defiled, does not get disenchanted toward of created, whould be able to find release. So of what benefit is it to consult those not free from defilments, full of desires and wrong views? Yet not even spoken of taking what is not given for ones release...

Dear Venerable Samana Johann, In my belief one who considers himself wise and others fools is himself a fool. One who considers himself a fool and others wise, is himself wise.I am not a Buddhist though revere the Buddha and His teachings. Does that make me unliberated, disenchanted, full of defilements and delusions?

 

[Jim]

LOL. Although you meet the dictionary definition of a theist ...

False. I don’t believe in the existence of God, and I’m as opposed to that kind of belief in God as the people I see denouncing it. In fact I have denounced it, in one of my threads.

(I was editing this while Adrian was responding to it.)

 

[Dawnofhope]

False. I don’t believe in the existence of God. I’m actually surprised that you didn’t know that.

My bad. I assumed that because you follow Baha'u'llah you did. No big deal that you don't.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a way to definitely confirm it and I have done so to my satisfaction.

Your satisfaction is dissatisfaction to many others who ask for evidence of existence of God. That of his prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and mahdis will come later.

 

[atanu]

I think 'the awakened one’ is God only.

@adrian009
I selected “This poll doesn't reflect my thinking”. Let me explain.

We may recognise Siddhartha and Buddha as two different aspects of same reality.

In my understanding, all religions essentially teach “I am that I am”. There are three paths, spoken of in scripture. The path of selfless karma, the path of bhakti (devotion) and the path of jnana-vicara ( knowledge-enquiry). In my opinion, Siddhartha followed the path of knowledge and taught the same (as Buddha).

Gita prescribes all three paths as per suitability of the seeker.

In the sense that Siddhartha was an idealist and a seeker, I label Him a theist, recognising that this perspective is not the conventional one.

For Buddha, the question theist versus atheist cannot apply.

 

[Samana Johann]

Dear Venerable Samana Johann, In my belief one who considers himself wise and others fools is himself a fool. One who considers himself a fool and others wise, is himself wise.I am not a Buddhist though revere the Buddha and His teachings. Does that make me unliberated, disenchanted, full of defilements and delusions?

As even mother of a movie fiction person, Forrest Gump, said: "A fool is who does foolish." (by thoughts, words and body), yet of course another might not know what is foolish and what not as well, and might be only able to judge verbal and bodily actions. But there are those who do not only know of what is foolish to do but also able to trace the source of actions, intentions.

Surely, ones own foolishness is at least more difficult to trace and that is why the wise praise those giving critic and approve in compassionate intent very much, hold on them for their long time benefit.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009
I selected “This poll doesn't reflect my thinking”. Let me explain.

We may recognise Siddhartha and Buddha as two different aspects of same reality.

In my understanding, all religions essentially teach “I am that I am”. There are three paths, spoken of in scripture. The path of selfless karma, the path of bhakti (devotion) and the path of jnana-vicara ( knowledge-enquiry). In my opinion, Siddhartha followed the path of knowledge and taught the same (as Buddha).

Gita prescribes all three paths as per suitability of the seeker.

In the sense that Siddhartha was an idealist and a seeker, I label Him a theist, recognising that this perspective is not the conventional one.

For Buddha, the question theist versus atheist cannot apply.

Thank you.

It is only natural to view traditions that are not ours, though the lens of our personal traditions. You naturally view Buddha through the Hindu traditions as recorded in the Holy Bhagavad Gita. I view Buddha through the lens of Theism. As such I would see Buddha as One who has perfected the spiritual path and embodies all the qualities and virtues. So while I agree He is the idealist and seeker, He is also the Ideal One and the One Sought. He embodies perfection.

 

[crossfire]

@adrian009
I selected “This poll doesn't reflect my thinking”. Let me explain.

We may recognise Siddhartha and Buddha as two different aspects of same reality.

In my understanding, all religions essentially teach “I am that I am”. There are three paths, spoken of in scripture. The path of selfless karma, the path of bhakti (devotion) and the path of jnana-vicara ( knowledge-enquiry). In my opinion, Siddhartha followed the path of knowledge and taught the same (as Buddha).

Gita prescribes all three paths as per suitability of the seeker.

In the sense that Siddhartha was an idealist and a seeker, I label Him a theist, recognising that this perspective is not the conventional one.

For Buddha, the question theist versus atheist cannot apply.

Where do you get the idea that Buddha was an idealist?
Buddhism is not a substance-based philosophy. Buddhism is a process-based philosophy. (See the 12 linked chain of interdependent co-arising.)

 

[atanu]

Thank you.

It is only natural to view traditions that are not ours, though the lens of our personal traditions. You naturally view Buddha through the Hindu traditions as recorded in the Holy Bhagavad Gita. I view Buddha through the lens of Theism. As such I would see Buddha as One who has perfected the spiritual path and embodies all the qualities and virtues. So while I agree He is the idealist and seeker, He is also the Ideal One and the One Sought. He embodies perfection.

I do not differ.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just thought that Paarasurey's comment was useful and profound. And I don't think it should be criticized based on his religious affiliation.

It isn't, and far as I can tell it wasn't.

What he presented was simply misinformed about the very nature of non-theism.

There is only so much that can be done with misguided premises.

 

[dybmh]

the very nature of non-theism.

Here is a quote from a respected RF Atheist on the nature of Atheism:

"Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Here is a quote from a knowledgeable source regarding Buddha Gautama's opinion on "lack of belief in the existence of gods"

Well, even the Buddha was clear and made no secret out of it, that "sceptics" and holder of strong wrong view (as "there are no gods...") are bound to hell. And to tell such was a matter of compassion.

Based on this, Luis, please be objective and honest.

What do you think?

To What Extent Was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?

 

[LuisDantas]

Here is a quote from a respected RF Atheist on the nature of Atheism:

"Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Here is a quote from a knowledgeable Buddhist regarding Buddha Gautama's opinion on "lack of belief in the existence of gods"



Based on this, Luis, please be objective and honest.

What do you think?

To What Extent Was Gautama Buddha a theist or an atheist?

I was clear enough, in this very thread. He was an apatheist, far as I can tell. Probably an atheist as well, if he ever saw reason to give the matter that much thought (which I doubt). Hindu culture tends to be far less obsessed with matters of theism than Christianity or Islaam find it necessary to be.

That said, I wonder why you bothered to quote those posts before making the question. It is not like they make any difference or add any useful information.

 

[atanu]

Thank you.

It is only natural to view traditions that are not ours, though the lens of our personal traditions. You naturally view Buddha through the Hindu traditions as recorded in the Holy Bhagavad Gita. I view Buddha through the lens of Theism. As such I would see Buddha as One who has perfected the spiritual path and embodies all the qualities and virtues. So while I agree He is the idealist and seeker, He is also the Ideal One and the One Sought. He embodies perfection.

I do not differ.

There is no boundaries of tradition in the unborn reality that goes by different names in different traditions. To me, The eternal unborn peace by any name is God only. Creator-ship is merely a role of this ultimate reality.

The one important, if not the final, goal of Buddhism is Nibbana.

‘We are told that Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecoming. That it is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable security: that it is the real truth and the supreme reality, that it is the good, the supreme goal, and the one and only consummation of our life. The eternal, hidden and incomprehensible peace.’

...

I think that theism-atheism are mere concepts-words, which do not change either the goal of seekers or the nature of the imperishable reality. Yet, can we ever say that goals of a Buddhist are same as goals of an atheist? I can never imagine that.

I changed my vote.

 

[dybmh]

I wonder why you bothered to quote those posts before making the question. It is not like they make any difference or add any useful information.

I am trying to understand what was wrong with what friend, Paarsurrey, said about Atheism. You said you are having trouble putting it into words.

Here is my chain of logic:

The first quote describes "the nature of Atheism"

"Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

The second quote shows that Gautama Buddha described Atheism as "wrong".

So clearly Gautama Buddha was not an Atheist.

Here's what Paarsurrey said:

Buddha had no connection with Non-Theism/Skepticism/Agnosticism/Atheism, so
Buddha was not a Skeptic/Agnostic/Atheist:

Here's what you said:

It is necessary to have a modicum of understanding of non-theism to reach some form of reliable conclusion about it, certainly. Not because non-theism is remarkable, but because that is how logic works.

As for what he (@paarsurrey) said, well, it is just wrong. Starting with the implicit (and typically Muslims, alas) premise that atheism is something to be "connected with" or to "distance oneself from".

Logic, Luis. Logic.

Paarsurrey said "no connection with Atheism." Buddha said Atheism is "wrong". What is illogical about what Paarsurrey said? It's not based on the definition of Atheism.

"Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
"Lack of Belief in gods is wrong view"

Buddha... not connected to the lack of belief in gods. Buddha discouraged it as wrong view. Paarsurrey was correct. You said Paarsurrey was wrong. Why?

Paarsurrey said "Buddha was not Atheist" Buddha said Atheism is "wrong". What is illogical about what Paarsurrey said?

Let's look at the logic of what you said.

He was an apatheist, far as I can tell. Probably an atheist as well,

it is just wrong. Starting with the implicit (and typically Muslims, alas) premise that atheism is something to be "connected with" or to "distance oneself from".

Here's the definition of Apatheist:

"An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Apatheism

Here's the definition of Atheist:

"Broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

hyperlink >>> wikipedia.org - Atheism

Luis... it is illogical that Gautama Buddha is an Apatheist, by definition. Buddha was **interested** in rejecting the claims that gods do not exist.
Luis... it is logical that Gautama Buddha is not an Atheist, by definition. Buddha was believed in at least 1 deity.

This means it's logical that Buddha was a theist. By definition. It's simple logic.

What you have said is illogical. What Paarsurrey said was logical. Your objection was based on a religious label. It wasn't a lack of logic. Maybe it seemed illogical at the time. But what you have said is completely baseless.

That's my point. And I hope that this situation will stand out in your mind the next time to you read someone's reply and you think it's illogical. Maybe it's not illogical. Maybe your opinion is based on the person's religious affiliation and not on the merit of the words that they have typed.

Something to consider...

 

[atanu]

Let actual monks clarify:

 

[LuisDantas]

I am trying to understand what was wrong with what friend, Paarsurrey, said about Atheism. You said you are having trouble putting it into words.

I have put it into words clearly easily enough: @paarsurrey is coming from a fantasy-world construct that he confuses with atheism, probably due to his Islaamic background.

That is, unfortunately, fairly typical.

And because that construct is so divorced from reality, it is difficult for me to second guess what he is talking about. I have tried on many a thread and I consider myself fairly good at that. But the obstacles are formidable and I do not expect to suceed very often at all.

Here is my chain of logic:

The first quote describes "the nature of Atheism"

"Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

The second quote shows that Gautama Buddha described Atheism as "wrong".

What? !?

So clearly Gautama Buddha was not an Atheist.

Eh. I don't think so.