David Mathews

Hello Bokonon,

David: I don't quote any of these scriptures as if they are the scriptures of all Buddhists. The scriptures apply to those Buddhists groups who recognize them as sacred.

You are correct in saying that Buddhism is not like Christianity. Christians have a single book of Scriptures which is accepted universally, Buddhists have different schools with their own sets of Scriptures which are canonical only for them.

I don't believe that it is quite so simple for you to dismiss the Mahayaha Buddhists as if they were a heretical group with Buddhism comparable to the status of Jehovah's Witnesses within Christianity. Whether or nor that is the case, these Buddhists did believe in the Absolute, the transcendent and the incomprehensible.

The Tibetan Buddhist monk Milarepa's deities were from the Bon religion. You are correct in saying so. I suppose that his recognition of the deities would serve to diminish the association of Buddhism with philosophical atheism.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Bokonon

I don't believe that it is quite so simple for you to dismiss the Mahayaha Buddhists as if they were a heretical group with Buddhism comparable to the status of Jehovah's Witnesses within Christianity.

Woah woah woah woah. That is NOT what I was saying at all. My point was this: you can not give a quote from Buddhist scripture and say that represents the Buddhist position on any given matter. Odds are, it won't represent the position of all Buddhists or even most Buddhists. That is what my reference to the JWs was for. Just like you cannot quote one Buddhist scripture to say it represents Buddhist thought, you cannot quote a Watchtower publication (or Luther's Cathecism or Pilgrim's Progress, etc. etc.) and say it represents the Christian perspective.

The Tibetan Buddhist monk Milarepa's deities were from the Bon religion. You are correct in saying so. I suppose that his recognition of the deities would serve to diminish the association of Buddhism with philosophical atheism.

No it doesn't! No one ever claimed that all Buddhists are atheists. Are you suggesting that all Buddhists are theists?

David Mathews

Hello Bokonon,

David: That is correct. There is a great diversity of theistic/atheistic beliefs in Buddhism.

David: To begin with, someone had claimed that all Buddhists are atheists in a separate thread. I am not claiming that all Buddhists are theists. That was not my purpose at all.

I acknowledged that some Buddhists were atheists in my initial post. I am aware of the great diversity of religious thought in Buddhism, this is one reason why the religion is so fascinating.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Jobar

Hello David- I feel sure that it is me you are addressing, as I have stated several times that I am an atheist/pantheist.

Note carefully- I have drawn parallels between statements from Buddhism (mainly Zen), Taoism, Vedantism (a highly philosophical sect of Hinduism); and certain philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity. (These parallels are not original to me- you can find various books which express them very well. Two good ones are "The Self-Aware Universe" by Amit Goswami, Ph.D; and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav. )

I have never said, however, that I consider myself a Buddhist, Taoist, or Vedantist! I find certain aspects of these religions/philosophies are a better 'fit' to the universe described by physics, than are the materialistic philosophies of the West.

It's my opinion that the universe is a unity- I am a monist. And I find that what we label matter/energy is better understood as information, or idea- I am an idealist. These can be contrasted with dualism, and with materialism.

When I speak of God or gods, I call the Abrahamic, Judaeo-Christian-Muslim notion monotheism. For this God, I am atheist.

If I am speaking of the Eastern concept- the Tao, or Brahman- I am agnostic-leaning-toward-belief. This I refer to as pantheism.

The main distinction between these two concepts- Brahman/Tao is not separate from the natural, observable universe. Yahweh/Allah *is* separate.

I'll continue on this another time- it's late and I'm tired!

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Denshuu

This is what I was refering to earlier. If one doesn't believe in a god or gods, then one may be labelled as an atheist. But this can't possibly be the case for Buddhism because not all Buddhists are atheists. Some are Hindu, a few I've met are Christian, and some are even pantheistic. The philosophy itself may not make reference to a diety, but this does not mean that Buddhism as a whole is atheistic. Rather, it is simply indifferent towards the religious belief on the person following the philosophy.

Vorkosigan

I often bring up this point in discussions with theists, that many forms of belief are atheistic, and some exist in both theistic and atheistic flavors. I think most Christians come here with the idea that atheists are all metaphysical naturalists and total skeptics, but that type is a minority even among atheists.

Vorkosigan

Answerer

Guys, as a follower of the Dharma, I can't allow him to spread his flawed understanding of Buddhism. So please, let me have a few moments with him.

Answerer

That depends on your own definition of the atheism and pantheism, if your definition of atheism is a belief that there is no all-powerful being, in this case, yes, Buddhism is atheistic.

Since you know about the atheistic nature of Buddhism, why are you still hoping to think otherwise?



For your informations, Buddhists never really regarded Buddhism as a religion, they think of it as a way of life and not an organization that focus on worships and rituals which is a wrong concept that most westerners had. Anyway, you can define Buddhism as whatever but true buddhists never really bother about such trival things.



Then, what are your concerns? Equaling Buddhism with christinity?

No, Mahayana Buddhism only stated the 'Buddha' nature behind all things and this 'Buddha' nature got nothing to do with the absolute.


It is right that Buddha had never concerned Himself with names and definitions but it is absolutely a distortion to what He preached by saying that He keeps silence about Absolute being, self and Nirvana. I don't know where you get this copy of viewpoint from, but it is surely a distortion of the Dharma. First of all, Buddha often preaches that there is no such thing as a self and this 'self applies not only to definition but also to soul(permanent self). Next, there is one section in one of the sutras in which the Buddha refuted the views of the Brahmans' belief in an absolute being. In addition, He only stated the nirvana is only a state of mind(not realms) and reality are just 'reflections' from our minds which is in contrast to what you had posted.
There is a more thing to take note, Buddha rejected the vedas, so it is not likely for him to quote from the Upanishads.


I will explain this below.


As I had said above, Buddha did refuted the existence of an ominpotent being. Furthermore, I had seen that your post always mentions things about souls which is a concept of self that He rejected as having permanent existence as I had said above. Obviously, the translation of the Dharma which you are using are flawed, do you want me to show you an Eastern one(make sure you know how to read chinese)?
The reason why Buddha refused to talk about the beginning of all creations, because He knew pointless speculation will only cause more misery and thats why He focused only the 'path'.


Atheism is a belief in which there is no all-powerful being and this got nothing to do with optimistism. Furthermore, not all atheists are pragmatists.


I can explain a little Dharma to you but first of all, I hope that you throw all your baseless assumptions you had of Buddhism and including any prejudice views that you have. Otherwise, I will just talk to you normally.

If you consider me as an atheist, then I will tell you that Buddhism is just a finger pointing to your heart.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

Answerer

As I had said before, it doesn't matter what anyone consider Buddhism as but Dharma is never limited to Buddhists only.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, Milarepa, the man, the Yogi of Tibet,
have a little learning, yet are my instructions great,
I take little sleep, though perservering at my meditation,
humble am I in heart, but great is my persistence.
Knowing one thing, I know all;
knowing all, I know that they are one.
I am an expert in Absolute Truth.

My bed is small, yet I am free to stretch my legs.
My clothes are thin, yet is my body warm.
I eat but little, yet am satisfied.

I am the one whom all yogis venerate,
to whom all faithful come, a guide
on the dread path of life and death.
Unattached to any home,
I have no fixed dwelling;
disregarding all, I do my will.

I crave for no possessions. Between clean
and unclean food I do not discriminate.
I suffer little pain from passion's string.

With little self-importance, I have few desires;
I crave not for objective and subjective things;
thus can I untie Nirvana's knots.

I console old people when they grieve;
loving fun, to the young I am a friend.
A yogi, I rove about all regions, withing
Devas and human beings to live in happiness.
(Milarepa's Meeting With Kar Chon Repa. The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa. Volume One. Translated by Garma C.C. Chang. pp. 200-201)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poems doesn't show that Buddhism is not an atheistic religion, it only shows the contentment of a monk who avoid craving and attachments. Again you used the wrong source to illusrate your views.

For your information, the gods in Buddhism will age and die as humans are, they are also flawed in their characters and are never perfect, so are the gods of the vedas. Gods in this sense only means superior beings not immortal beings, furthermore, everyone has a chance to be reborn as gods or devas.

Neither did Buddha preach anything about God, why? Because He had said for countless of times that is no being having a permanent self and this implies to your God too, so, His disciples obviously know what He was trying to say and stop any discussion about God as it was pointless to talk about.


Wrong, western Buddhism may be different from Eastern Buddhism in some ways , but their essence remains the same. Again for your information, in Buddhism, Buddhahood is the highest stage that could be found or reached and Buddha is just an 'awakened' man, not God or whatever.

Answerer

Guys, I think that all of you by now, knew that David's arguments and sources are all based on wrong assumption, inaccurate sources and flawed understanding. I hoped that all of you don't misunderstood Dharma by looking and believing at his posts as the last thing that Buddhism needs is a distortion of its orignial works.