Seraphim

"No, actually a Deist is someone who believes that a God created the universe with all its natural laws in place, and then left it alone. It was a very popular viewpoint in the late 18th century in Europe and America (most of our first Presidents were Deists). It's an attempt to reconcile the scientific advances of the Enlightenment period with an inability to explain the beginning of the universe."

My reply : Just because a view is popular in the West in 18th Century it means it is not accepted in other parts of the world.

Gautama did believe in God, just that he feels that self-approach by self-enhancement is better than seeking God's help for enlightment. It's like "Why bother to walk if you don't care to make efforts to walk?" thing.

"BTW, if you you want fuller definitions of terms like weak atheist, etc,you can check Theodore Drange's article in the Infidels' Library."

My reply : Thanks, I think I have enough info.

"Not really. That is wrong on both counts (with respect to Buddhism and to atheism)."

My reply : Really? Your opinion below is based on ... what? Self study? some teachers in the West? Books? Internet?

"Firstly, the concept of a soul or atman was specifically denied by the Buddha. It's a cornerstone of his teaching, one of the distinctive things about it."

My reply : If there is no such soul, why should Gautama cared where he was going or why he is suffering? He could have just enjoy life as a prince and when he died, he could have rot in the ground as maggot food.

"And reincarnation only figures strongly in some Buddhist traditions (Tibetan, for example). I know of at least one Buddhist teacher (the Thai forest monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) who taught that Buddha did not believe in reincarnation, but used it as a metaphor, one that was later taken literally."

My reply : Someone should go and tell Gautama that he wasted his life trying to beat the wheel of life, death and rebirth (namely Karma) because such thing didn't exist according to a Thai monk who is more enlightened than he was.

Friend, do you know that if you say there is no reincarnation, it is equal to say that there is no need for enlightnment? Why did Gautama become Buddha (the Enlightnment One)? To teach you something? No, he become Buddha in attempt to defeat his own circle of life and death.

"As far as atheism is concerned, the only thing it entails is the non-belief in a god or gods. On these forums, atheists are also usually metaphysical naturalists, meaning that they don't believe in souls, reincarnation, spirits, or other extra-worldly things. But it's possible to be an atheist and believe in the existence of a metaphysical realm. "

My reply : Can't say anything about personal opinions.

"As to the quote you were responding to, since we can agree that Buddhists are not obligated to believe in god, and that an atheist is someone who does not believe in god, it is possible to be both. I know because I am both."

My reply : Correction ... a Buddhist is someone not obligated to worship a God, it is HIS or HER choice such as existed in China and Japan and also other part of the world (in the East anyway). Whether you believe in it or not is your choice.

You maybe a Atheist, but you still have some way to go to become a Buddhist. How sure are you that you are free of negative emotions and duality?

Answerer

I'm with lugotorix.

Seraphim

"I'm with lugotorix. "

My reply : Brave commitments, Very Good. In the end, only you will be the judge of your own path, NOONE else.

Good luck gentlemen, we will seeing each other at the finishing line at end of our lives.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

Answerer

Yeah, all of us should be the judge of our own path not a most likely non-existed God. Thanks for your comments nevertheless.

Agricola Senior

I hope it is not too late to emphasize that Buddha's teaching was an atheism.
There are many forms of corrupted buddhism with theistic leanings, but his original doctrine was atheistic.

lugotorix

I think you are missing my point. I was just pointing out what Deism refers to, not recommending it as a belief.

To clarify, in the Pali scriptures he makes references to the realm of devas or gods, but in the Brahmajala Sutta he specifically denies the existence of a Creator God as is worshipped in most other religions. Here's a link to <a href="http://www.buddhadust.org/sutta/dn/1_brahmagala/sutta_dhamma_1.htm#Onviews" target="_blank"> the scripture</a>; look for the section entitled Partial Eternalists.

I am a Buddhist, having gone for refuge in the 3 Treasures and taken the 5 precepts in the presence of a Buddhist monk (who is Chinese, by the way; I only point this out since you seem to have a dim view of western Buddhist teachers...). I have been reading Buddhist scriptures of both Theravada and Mahayana since I was 15 years old; I even have a portion of the Pali Scriptures in English translation stored on my hard drive. My views are not pulled out of some hippy-dippy New Age books, but directly from the Buddhist scriptures.

It does not follow that denying the existence of a soul implies that there is no rebirth. The various traditions have their own ideas how this occurs; some say the last thought in one life is immediately followed by the first thought in the next. In Tibet, they think that the person's awareness is reborn into an in-between realm (bardo) and stays for a while until it is attracted to its future parents in the act of conception. In both cases, they believe that the awareness is a stream of moments, with nothing permanent about it.

I don't know if either of these scenarios is true; I wonder if it is even possible to know. This make me an agnostic with regards to rebirth.

No, Buddhadasa believed in the possibility of enlightenment and in karma. He just thought that the Buddha was misunderstood by his followers, who took his metaphor literally and thought reincarnation really happens. He thought that the rebirth that the Buddha was refering to was actually the rebirth from moment to moment of the concept of "I" as a separate being. Hence the goal (enlightenment) was to get rid of that false duality in this lifetime.

No, as I stated above I am a Buddhist, because of my taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, and vowing to uphold the 5 Precepts. As far as being free of negative emotions and duality, of course I'm not. That's why I'm a Buddhist. If I were already free of these things, I would be a Buddha, at the end of the path instead of traveling on it.

lugotorix

[edited to correct misspelling. dang.]

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: lugotorix ]</p>

dostf

No, as I stated above I am a Buddhist(lugotorix)

- While i understand your meaning, I would point out that you are a HUMAN BEING, not a Buddhist.
- This kind of "labelling" to oneself is unfortunately a burden and curse for humans.
- One person is Buddhist, another Christian, a third, Muslim, a fourth, black, a fifth male, a sixth engineer and on and on....
- All attributes that "put us in a box" and seperate us from others
- Further they perpetuate the "reality of self" and prevent us from the "truth" that is the human being...
- I would imagine Buddha himself probably would not have defined himself as a "Buddhist"
- To say " I am in agreement with the principles and practices of Buddhism" is one thing, to say "I am Buddhist" is another. The distinction is slight but very relevent IMO.

Be seeing you...

lugotorix

Actually, to continue your reasoning to its logical extreme, to define myself as a HUMAN BEING is to separate myself from all other types of living beings, so I'll have to refrain from that, it being a curse and all. But then, referring to myself as a LIVING BEING separates me from all other non-living existence. Referring to myself as an EXISTING BEING separates me from that which doesn't exist. I guess I'm going to have to stop referring to myself at all, to avoid this curse.

.. and Christ wasn't a Christian. So what?
And the distinction is very pedantic, IMO. I am not just in agreement with the principles and practices of Buddhism, I am trying to follow the Buddha's teachings, which makes me a Buddhist.
It is a way of ordering my life, not a way of dividing people into "believers" and "non-believers".

lugotorix

dostf

logotorix:

- the human being is WHOLENESS (although due to believing in the "realness" of our attributes (I am a Buddhist being one example)we only see in "parts" . Human is not seperate from anything.
- "Buddha wasn't a Buddhist" "Christ wasn't a Christian" so what?-- Just a thought that the "labelling" process of any "path" always comes from it's followers.

And the distinction is very pedantic, IMO. I am not just in agreement with the principles and practices of Buddhism, I am trying to follow the Buddha's teachings, which makes me a Buddhist.
It is a way of ordering my life, not a way of dividing people into "believers" and "non-believers". (logotorix)

- It may be pedantic to you, but persons ascribing their identity to one label or another have murdered eachother throughout history over having "different labels". Very sad......

Be seeing you...

lugotorix

Well, I promise not to murder anyone. Come to think of it, I vowed not to do this already when I became a Buddhist -- it's the first Precept.

If you truly believe it's wrong to apply labels to oneself, why are you posting in a thread that deals with these labels, which requires you to accept the fact that people describe their beliefs through generally accepted terms like "atheist", "Christian","Buddhist", etc?

If I were to try and live up to your philosophy, I would be forced to say "I may or may not be a being that may or may not exist and that may or may not believe certain things." At which point, any discussion becomes meaningless.

lugotorix