What makes you interested towards Dharmic Religions ?

[crossfire]

I suppose that one could make the argument that strong atheism is an aversion, but that is a blanket statement that wouldn't apply evenly among specific individuals and hold true, so is not really very useful. It is up to each individual to purify their mind through contemplation and discernment.

 

[chinu]

Read the Fourth Seal: Nibbana is beyond concepts.

Sorry! I cannot translate what the seal claims, actually.
It would be more easy for me, if you care to answer my question that is "According to all Buddhists, do these seals justifies that Buddhism is compatible with strong atheism, or not ? "

 

[crossfire]

This thread might need to be moved to same-faith debates or general religious debates, imo.

 

[crossfire]

Sorry! I cannot translate what the seal claims, actually.
It would be more easy for me, if you care to answer my question that is "According to all Buddhists, do these seals justifies that Buddhism is compatible with strong atheism, or not ? "

I've already answered you: Buddhism is rather transtheistic. It is up to each individual to contemplate and purify their own mind.

 

[chinu]

Who are "all Buddhists"? Are you asking about informed opinions, I assume?

All Buddhists means, including the people who claims themselves to be Buddhists, but also claims some of the Buddhists to be non-Buddhists due to the differences of their observation of Buddhism which isn't compatible with strong atheism.

Or, there isn't any such Buddhist ?

 

[LuisDantas]

What if, any such Buddhist who claim that Buddhism is compatible with strong Theism. rather than atheism, Says the same as you have said above ?

Buddhism is compatible with Theism. It just will not guide itself by it.

I don't know what Strong Theism is exactly. If you mean belief in a God that one should trust above one's own discernment and efforts, then I suppose I would just wonder how that person came to such an odd conclusion and why he or she thinks of that as Buddhism.

Whom should I acknowledge ? You, or the one who is standing opposite to you ?

Why should you acknowledge anyone at all, much less choose between me and that hypothetical being?

It will all come down to what your purpose is, won't it?

or why such Buddhist isn't eligible to be true Buddhist for the one who isn't aware of Buddhism at all ?

Many people do mistake theistic-centered beliefs for Buddhism, no doubt. But that can only happen in defiance or ignorance of the core concepts of Buddhism, as explained above by Crossfire.

 

[chinu]

I've already answered you: Buddhism is rather transtheistic. It is up to each individual to contemplate and purify their own mind.

What do you mean by transtheistic ? is there any difference between atheistic and transtheistic ?

 

[LuisDantas]

All Buddhists means,

Again, that is too self-referential to have a true meaning. You are in essence asking whether all Buddhists agree about what Buddhism is.

including the people who claims themselves to be Buddhists, but also claims some of the Buddhists to be non-Buddhists due to the differences of their observation of Buddhism which isn't compatible with strong atheism.

I can't make heads or tails out of this.

Or, there isn't any such Buddhist ?

No idea. But even assuming for a moment that there are any - ignorant, misinformed, confused, dishonest and even all-out insane people do exist. Including some who claim to be Buddhists.

I hope you are not expecting me to surrender my judgement to them, because I will not. That would be just silly.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you mean by transtheistic ? is there any difference between atheistic and transtheistic ?

Allow me, Crossfire:


An atheistic doctrine denies or at least avoids belief in god.

A transtheistic doctrine will simply not need it. It transcends theism (or even atheism) and is therefore transtheistic.

No doubt Crossfire will put it in better words, but that is it in a nutshell.



In a specifically Buddhist context, thoughts about whether there is a God or not are simply not very useful and should not be pursued or even rejected; that would be a pointless distraction from more useful matters. It is a good example of an artificial dualism with no practical significance.

 

[chinu]

Buddhism is compatible with Theism. It just will not guide itself by it.
I don't know what Strong Theism is exactly. If you mean belief in a God that one should trust above one's own discernment and efforts, then I suppose I would just wonder how that person came to such an odd conclusion and why he or she thinks of that as Buddhism.
Why should you acknowledge anyone at all, much less choose between me and that hypothetical being?
It will all come down to what your purpose is, won't it?
Many people do mistake theistic-centered beliefs for Buddhism, no doubt. But that can only happen in defiance or ignorance of the core concepts of Buddhism, as explained above by Crossfire.

Anyways, thank you for the information about different Buddhists, luis.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyways, thank you for the information about different Buddhists, luis.

And perhaps more significantly, about different people who claim to be Buddhists, or who have weird misconceptions about what Buddhism is or should be.

Here's hoping that you will not cling to a few words in order to further reinforce your preconceptions about how everyone must belief in God "deep down".

I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[chinu]

Allow me, Crossfire:


An atheistic doctrine denies or at least avoids belief in god.

A transtheistic doctrine will simply not need it. It transcends theism (or even atheism) and is therefore transtheistic.

No doubt Crossfire will put it in better words, but that is it in a nutshell.

In a specifically Buddhist context, thoughts about whether there is a God or not are simply not very useful and should not be pursued or even rejected; that would be a pointless distraction from more useful matters. It is a good example of an artificial dualism with no practical significance.

Anyways, thank you for giving information according to your personal Buddhism, that I say for the mean time, I think.

 

[chinu]

And perhaps more significantly, about different people who claim to be Buddhists, or who have weird misconceptions about what Buddhism is or should be.

Here's hoping that you will not cling to a few words in order to further reinforce your preconceptions about how everyone must belief in God "deep down".

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Ok

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyways, thank you for giving information according to your personal Buddhism, that I say for the mean time, I think.

Chinu, my personal Buddhism happens to be atheistic, because I am an atheist myself.

Someone else's may well be theistic because that is how the water runs for them. They will probably have a hard time if they want to entertain an Abrahamic-like concept of God in a Buddhist practice, though.

Buddhism in and of itself, when correctly taught and understood, has no time to care about beliefs in God one way or the other.

At this point I actually doubt you will understand and accept that. But that is the truth, or as close to it as I can understand it.

 

[crossfire]

All Buddhists means, including the people who claims themselves to be Buddhists, but also claims some of the Buddhists to be non-Buddhists due to the differences of their observation of Buddhism which isn't compatible with strong atheism.

Or, there isn't any such Buddhist ?

Chinu, I've already given you the criteria by which you tell Buddhism from "sorta-looks-like-Buddhism." The Four Seals.

The Four Dharma Seals -- The Four Dharma Seals Define Buddhism

 

[ratikala]

namaste :namaste

Buddhism is compatible with Theism. It just will not guide itself by it.

this is some what of a moot point , ....in many respects buddhism should be neither strongly theistic or strongly atheistic , ....what buddha taught is that we should not attatch too strongly to the concept of god or to the concept of no god , the initial focus should be upon the attainment of enlightenment .

I don't know what Strong Theism is exactly. If you mean belief in a God that one should trust above one's own discernment and efforts, then I suppose I would just wonder how that person came to such an odd conclusion and why he or she thinks of that as Buddhism.

you may wish to say this from a theravedins point of veiw ? ... but that dosent nececarily work with mahayana schools , and to be fair both are equaly valid traditions .

when asked at what point a person becomes a buddhist ? ... the dalai lama replied when one takes refuge in buddha , dharma and sangha , this is a little different from the accepting the four seals that I hear quoted constantly on this site , .... yes of course we need to practice dissernment and apply effort , this is basic eight fold path practice , ...but there are other schools of buddhism were refuge mind is very very important .....

Why should you acknowledge anyone at all, much less choose between me and that hypothetical being?

Ha ha , ....one 'hypotheytical being' at your service :namaste .... for many years as a rather more theisticly leaning buddhist , who dosent expect any one to choose between theistic leaning buddhists or non theistic buddhists , ....all I wish is that some people here would stop attacking me for being honest about my understanding , I have never attacked a non theistic buddhist and called them 'ignorant' , but they dont mind telling me that my practice and understanding is incorrect , ....

It will all come down to what your purpose is, won't it?

chinus purpose ? ...expanding the mind as usual , .... chinu bhai likes to make people think . ....well at least that is what I think chinu bhai is enjoying to do

Many people do mistake theistic-centered beliefs for Buddhism, no doubt. But that can only happen in defiance or ignorance of the core concepts of Buddhism, as explained above by Crossfire.

now I realise that this remark was not nececarily aimed at me , but please you guys cut other people some slack , .....

there are practices that cultivate an esoteric understanding within buddhism , so not all practitioners accept the same veiw , to some the buddha is a manifestation of the 'dharmakaya' thus embodies ultimate reality , which is eternal , blissfull and the embodiment of knowledge , .... this is not the creator god concept of abrahamic religions , but none the less it is a state of divinity worthy of reverence even worship .

 

[LuisDantas]

There is such a thing as allowing too much leeway.

Even in Mahayana, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to center one's practice on the concept of a hypothetical creator God.

Such is valid religious practice, sure, but not at all very Buddhist, if Buddhist at all.

 

[Jainarayan]

I tried looking at Hinduism, but it focused too much on ritual and things, rather than processes for my taste.

There is always deistic Hinduism. It's the approach I find working out better for me. No rituals, no dogma.

 

[ratikala]

There is such a thing as allowing too much leeway.

there is al less fundamentalist approach that I far prefer and that is , ... live and let live ..... in otherwords you do your sadhana and I do mine ,


but next time you contemplate right speach , ask yourself is it realy condusive to call people '' ignorant, misinformed, confused, dishonest and even all-out insane''

quote luisDantas ....
'' ignorant, misinformed, confused, dishonest and even all-out insane people do exist. Including some who claim to be Buddhists. ''

that is a prety judgemental statement !!!

 

[LuisDantas]

that is a prety judgemental statement !!!

If you say so. I stand by what I said. I won't lie to you nor to Chinu about what I believe to be correct.

That is indeed correct speech, or as close to it as I can manage.