|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 28, 2018 0:16:42 GMT
How would a debate between theistic Buddhists vs atheistic Buddhists go...?  Would any of the Buddhist posters on this forum (whether atheistic or theistic) like to give their POV on the subject...? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 28, 2018 0:23:40 GMT
How would a debate between theistic Buddhists vs atheistic Buddhists go...? Would any of the Buddhist posters on this forum (whether atheistic or theistic) like to give their POV on the subject...? Are there any? I have an interest in an appreciation for some of the Buddhist philosophy butt I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist by any means, atheist OR theist! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2018 1:08:09 GMT
Do buddhists debate things? I thought they just kind of sat in the corner and meditated and stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 2:32:51 GMT
How would a debate between theistic Buddhists vs atheistic Buddhists go...? Would any of the Buddhist posters on this forum (whether atheistic or theistic) like to give their POV on the subject...? Theistic Buddhists usually do not recognise that they are theistic except for the followers of Jodo Shinshu school, who proudly say that they are theists. Bastasch on old boards was an American Buddhist of Jodo Shinshu school and called himself a theist.
Almost all Buddhists in traditional Buddhist countries like Bhutan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc are in some way theistic because they believe in deities such as Goddess Tara, God Amitabha or some other deities who have their own heaven. But those Buddhists claim that because none of these deities are creator gods so believing in them does not make them theists.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 28, 2018 2:39:58 GMT
How would a debate between theistic Buddhists vs atheistic Buddhists go...? Would any of the Buddhist posters on this forum (whether atheistic or theistic) like to give their POV on the subject...? Theistic Buddhists usually do not recognise that they are theistic except for the followers of Jodo Shinshu school, who proudly say that they theistic. Bastasch on old boards was an American Buddhist of Jodo Shinshu school and called himself a theist.
Almost all Buddhists in traditional Buddhist countries like Bhutan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc are in some way theistic because they believe in deities such as Goddess Tara, God Amitabha or some other deities which have their own heaven. But those Buddhists claim that because none of these deities are creator gods so believing in them does not make them theists.
On Quora there is a Buddhist monk from Japan, who says that Buddhism is polytheistic, contrary to what Western Buddhists claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 2:45:17 GMT
Theistic Buddhists usually do not recognise that they are theistic except for the followers of Jodo Shinshu school, who proudly say that they theistic. Bastasch on old boards was an American Buddhist of Jodo Shinshu school and called himself a theist.
Almost all Buddhists in traditional Buddhist countries like Bhutan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc are in some way theistic because they believe in deities such as Goddess Tara, God Amitabha or some other deities which have their own heaven. But those Buddhists claim that because none of these deities are creator gods so believing in them does not make them theists.
On Quora there is a Buddhist monk from Japan, who says that Buddhism is polytheistic, contrary to what Western Buddhists claim. In my tour of Bhutan (which is a Buddhist kingdom) I saw that Buddhists had very strong faith in Buddhist deities and in early morning as well as evening most of them would visit temples and offer prayers to Goddess Tara and other deities. That is theistic in my book. Worshipping many deities does not necessarily mean being polytheistic if those who believe in different deities ultimately believe that there is only one highest truth (state of nirvana). |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 2:47:29 GMT
Theistic Buddhists usually do not recognise that they are theistic except for the followers of Jodo Shinshu school, who proudly say that they theistic. Bastasch on old boards was an American Buddhist of Jodo Shinshu school and called himself a theist.
Almost all Buddhists in traditional Buddhist countries like Bhutan, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc are in some way theistic because they believe in deities such as Goddess Tara, God Amitabha or some other deities which have their own heaven. But those Buddhists claim that because none of these deities are creator gods so believing in them does not make them theists.
On Quora there is a Buddhist monk from Japan, who says that Buddhism is polytheistic, contrary to what Western Buddhists claim. Western Buddhists are self proclaimed group of intellectuals who have very little knowledge of traditional Buddhism and Buddhist customs. It is more of a sort of fad which would not last long. In next century there will be some new fad. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 28, 2018 3:00:53 GMT
On Quora there is a Buddhist monk from Japan, who says that Buddhism is polytheistic, contrary to what Western Buddhists claim. Western Buddhists are self proclaimed group of intellectuals who have very little knowledge of traditional Buddhism and custom. It is more of a sort of fad which would not last long. In next century there will be some new fad. Very true. To tell you the truth, even some of the so-called "Born Again" Christians are actually people who have little knowledge of traditional Christianity & its customs too. I guess the same thing can be also said about so-called "Western Hindus," such as the Hare Krishnas, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 3:06:58 GMT
Western Buddhists are self proclaimed group of intellectuals who have very little knowledge of traditional Buddhism and custom. It is more of a sort of fad which would not last long. In next century there will be some new fad. Very true. To tell you the truth, even some of the so-called "Born Again" Christians are actually people who have little knowledge of traditional Christianity & its customs too. I guess the same thing can be also said about so-called "Western Hindus," such as the Hare Krishnas, etc. Hare Krishnas are idiots. The religion itself has very little to do with traditional Hinduism. The entire Vaishnavite Hindus believe that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu but HK believe that Vishnu was incarnation of Krishna. But I don't think they proclaim themselves to be intellectuals. They come across as delusional people rather than people pretending to be intellectuals. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 7:37:48 GMT
Buddhism is certainly not rational atheism as most Western Buddhists will claim. The concept of nirvana is a superstitious and fanciful one to begin with. Buddhists also believe that karma is some magical essence which is universally applied to the material as if it is fairy dust. Acts bring consequences, but that is not karma according to Buddhism. Furthermore, no one can claim to be a rational atheist and believe in an unproven and improvable theory such as reincarnation. Buddhism is a religious system which exists without the necessity of deities. But almost all Buddhists believe in the folk deities of the culture in which they were raised. Your assessment is right. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 28, 2018 8:09:03 GMT
Buddhism is certainly not rational atheism as most Western Buddhists will claim. The concept of nirvana is a superstitious and fanciful one to begin with. Buddhists also believe that karma is some magical essence which is universally applied to the material as if it is fairy dust. Acts bring consequences, but that is not karma according to Buddhism. Furthermore, no one can claim to be a rational atheist and believe in an unproven and improvable theory such as reincarnation. Buddhism is a religious system which exists without the necessity of deities. But almost all Buddhists believe in the folk deities of the culture in which they were raised. The adamant rejection of all speculation is the position that is not rational. Speculation is a perfectly rational exercise. You have it the wrong way around. Quite many atheists are severely mentally retarded or have copied the papers of severely mentally retarded people, otherwise the attitude could not develop that speculation is "irrational." Blind faith in science has many adherents who wouldn't understand proof anyway if they saw it, so it's laughable that they depend on proof for everything. Simple minds want a simple universe and complain when they're told it isn't. ==~~~=*=~~~== I suspect Buddhism is much like anything else in that many of the people in it have differing notions what it all means depending on their various skills in communication and abstract thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 28, 2018 8:32:37 GMT
Very true. To tell you the truth, even some of the so-called "Born Again" Christians are actually people who have little knowledge of traditional Christianity & its customs too. I guess the same thing can be also said about so-called "Western Hindus," such as the Hare Krishnas, etc. Hare Krishnas are idiots. The religion itself has very little to do with traditional Hinduism. The entire Vaishnavite Hindus believe that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu but HK believe that Vishnu was incarnation of Krishna. But I don't think they proclaim themselves to be intellectuals. They come across as delusional people rather than people pretending to be intellectuals. There are people in many disciplines who follow traditions without fully understanding them. It can become more important to them that their tradition is the ultimate arbiter of truth rather than a mere tool to discover the ultimate truth. There are many western Christians like that. Following traditions without understanding them is not usually a bad thing. Many good children do that. It saves a lot of needless repetitive experimentation, heartache and loss. Of course it might become a terrible thing if the people who have charge of the traditions, the adults in the room, fail to understand them and fail to guide the children properly. I suspect the Hare Krishna disciples you met are the novices. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 28, 2018 9:35:58 GMT
Hare Krishnas are idiots. The religion itself has very little to do with traditional Hinduism. The entire Vaishnavite Hindus believe that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu but HK believe that Vishnu was incarnation of Krishna. But I don't think they proclaim themselves to be intellectuals. They come across as delusional people rather than people pretending to be intellectuals. There are people in many disciplines who follow traditions without fully understanding them. It can become more important to them that their tradition is the ultimate arbiter of truth rather than a mere tool to discover the ultimate truth. There are many western Christians like that. Following traditions without understanding them is not usually a bad thing. Many good children do that. It saves a lot of needless repetitive experimentation, heartache and loss. Of course it might become a terrible thing if the people who have charge of the traditions, the adults in the room, fail to understand them and fail to guide the children properly. I suspect the Hare Krishna disciples you met are the novices. I have claimed it before that I believe that all religions have certain common goals. The goal is to drive the adherents towards what they perceive is the ultimate truth or ultimate destination. Even if I do not believe in religions, I do not discriminate between religions (and to be honest even you are fairly respectful of different traditions) and believe whether it is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism they all mean well. That said there is always a chance that over the years religions will develop traditions that are not so good. Feudalist mentality in medieval Japan, Europe or India were in certain ways (even if indirect ways) encouraged by religions. I would respect religions more if they have ability to re-examine their traditions and customs and constantly search for truth. The Hare Krishna people that I have met are often sure of their stance and unwilling to re-examine their opinions of other faiths. In Sanskrit the word Ishwara has traditionally referred to Shiva. The other meanings of Shiva is the auspicious one or the one that has no birth and no death. There is a misconception that Shiva represents death (as in physical death). According to Upanishads Shiva represents the death of ego and the death of physical form. For that reason Shiva is also the formless one according to Upanishads. The one who has reached the state of consciousness in which one has no ego, greed, desire or lust.
As human civilisation progressed people created gods with physical forms. It was because the Hindu saints thought an illiterate person who works in field all day and has no means to study cannot understand the philosophical depths of teachings of Upanishads. Thus were born the Krishna and Shiva with forms. As you see in pictures. There is nothing wrong in believing in gods with forms. What is wrong is in believing that what you believe is the only truth. This is where HK people and even HK elders make things go wrong. They should at least have courtesy to respect traditional Hinduism. They don't. They even refer to the oldest god of Hinduism (Shiva) as a demi-god. Even though I was born in a Vaishnavite family I find it extremely hypocritical that HK people are so derogatory towards people of other faiths. Almost all other Hindus not only give respects to other sects of Hinduism but also hold religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam in a very high regard. Giving respect to other faiths is the primary Hindu value which people like M.K.Gandhi, Vivekananda and other great people had reiterated time and again. Because HK people do not believe in such values I find it difficult to give them any respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 28, 2018 13:35:23 GMT
The adamant rejection of all speculation is the position that is not rational. Speculation is a perfectly rational exercise. You have it the wrong way around. Quite many atheists are severely mentally retarded or have copied the papers of severely mentally retarded people, otherwise the attitude could not develop that speculation is "irrational." The atheists who say that all speculation is irrational in principle only exist in your dumb-ass imagination. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 2:17:50 GMT
I have claimed it before that I believe that all religions have certain common goals. The goal is to drive the adherents towards what they perceive is the ultimate truth or ultimate destination. Even if I do not believe in religions, I do not discriminate between religions (and to be honest even you are fairly respectful of different traditions) and believe whether it is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism they all mean well. That said there is always a chance that over the years religions will develop traditions that are not so good. Feudalist mentality in medieval Japan, Europe or India were in certain ways (even if indirect ways) encouraged by religions. I would respect religions more if they have ability to re-examine their traditions and customs and constantly search for truth. You are far too charitable in your assessment. People are, fundamentally, animals. Highly social mammalian animals. We are a very territorial species with a strong sense of hierarchy and dominance in relationships. Most of us are naturally inclined to follow whomever stands out, through personal charisma and/or raw physical strength, as a leader. Those who can establish a position of authority will tend to try to preserve it. Religion is one of the most effective tools toward that end, in that it defines a body of rules (or laws, if you will) governing the behavior of the community that cannot be challenged. So organized religion is at its essence a tool for social control and for the maintenance of the positions of power of those at the top of the social hierarchy, regardless of what the adherents of the religion may claim, or actually believe, is the purpose of the religion. (NB: If it isn't already clear, I am speaking here about organized systems of religion as opposed to the personal superstitions of individuals.) The tendency of religion toward "traditions that are not so good" is a feature, not a bug; and the notion that religion is meant to seek truth just makes it all the more enticing, and thus more effective as a tool for social control. Of course, there are forms of organized religion that aspire to equality of all. But they are the exceptions that have deviated from the usual order. But isn't the caste system a fundamental part of virtually all, if not all, traditional forms of Hinduism? What respect do the "upper" castes show to the Dalits? As I recall, during one of my first trips to India, a little more than 15 years ago now, an upper-caste man beat a lower-caste man to death because the lower-caste man had taken too long to get out of the way of the upper-caste man's car. Just a few weeks ago, a Dalit was allegedly killed by a Kshatriya for daring to own and ride a horse, which is forbidden. Dr Ambedkar was unsparing in his analysis of M.K. Gandhi on this point. Gandhi preached equality to the Western audience while hewing to Hindu orthodoxy to a local audience.
I only found out about this from reading and hearing Arundhati Roy talking about it. for example:
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 29, 2018 2:58:49 GMT
I have claimed it before that I believe that all religions have certain common goals. The goal is to drive the adherents towards what they perceive is the ultimate truth or ultimate destination. Even if I do not believe in religions, I do not discriminate between religions (and to be honest even you are fairly respectful of different traditions) and believe whether it is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism they all mean well. That said there is always a chance that over the years religions will develop traditions that are not so good. Feudalist mentality in medieval Japan, Europe or India were in certain ways (even if indirect ways) encouraged by religions. I would respect religions more if they have ability to re-examine their traditions and customs and constantly search for truth. You are far too charitable in your assessment. People are, fundamentally, animals. Highly social mammalian animals. We are a very territorial species with a strong sense of hierarchy and dominance in relationships. Most of us are naturally inclined to follow whomever stands out, through personal charisma and/or raw physical strength, as a leader. Those who can establish a position of authority will tend to try to preserve it. Religion is one of the most effective tools toward that end, in that it defines a body of rules (or laws, if you will) governing the behavior of the community that cannot be challenged. So organized religion is at its essence a tool for social control and for the maintenance of the positions of power of those at the top of the social hierarchy, regardless of what the adherents of the religion may claim, or actually believe, is the purpose of the religion. (NB: If it isn't already clear, I am speaking here about organized systems of religion as opposed to the personal superstitions of individuals.) The tendency of religion toward "traditions that are not so good" is a feature, not a bug; and the notion that religion is meant to seek truth just makes it all the more enticing, and thus more effective as a tool for social control. Of course, there are forms of organized religion that aspire to equality of all. But they are the exceptions that have deviated from the usual order. But isn't the caste system a fundamental part of virtually all, if not all, traditional forms of Hinduism? What respect do the "upper" castes show to the Dalits? As I recall, during one of my first trips to India, a little more than 15 years ago now, an upper-caste man beat a lower-caste man to death because the lower-caste man had taken too long to get out of the way of the upper-caste man's car. Just a few weeks ago, a Dalit was allegedly killed by a Kshatriya for daring to own and ride a horse, which is forbidden. Dr Ambedkar was unsparing in his analysis of M.K. Gandhi on this point. Gandhi preached equality to the Western audience while hewing to Hindu orthodoxy to a local audience.
I only found out about this from reading and hearing Arundhati Roy talking about it. for example:
That's a lot of words and stuff. I sum religion up as endemic heirarchical ritualised 'tribalism'. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 3:15:06 GMT
I sum religion up as endemic heirarchical ritualised 'tribalism'. That's not necessarily different than what I said. But you can better understand the why of the tribalism if you remember that human beings are social animals and you frame the analysis in those terms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_behaviorWe're not that different from horses or dogs or gorillas. Most of us want to be led around & will comfortably follow the rules set by the leader of the pack. And the leader and his homies take down anyone who tries to subvert his position of authority. We're just more sophisticated in that instead of relying solely on fangs, claws, and horns to maintain social hierarchies, we also use forms of mind-control like religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 29, 2018 4:11:35 GMT
I have claimed it before that I believe that all religions have certain common goals. The goal is to drive the adherents towards what they perceive is the ultimate truth or ultimate destination. Even if I do not believe in religions, I do not discriminate between religions (and to be honest even you are fairly respectful of different traditions) and believe whether it is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism they all mean well. That said there is always a chance that over the years religions will develop traditions that are not so good. Feudalist mentality in medieval Japan, Europe or India were in certain ways (even if indirect ways) encouraged by religions. I would respect religions more if they have ability to re-examine their traditions and customs and constantly search for truth. You are far too charitable in your assessment. People are, fundamentally, animals. Highly social mammalian animals. We are a very territorial species with a strong sense of hierarchy and dominance in relationships. Most of us are naturally inclined to follow whomever stands out, through personal charisma and/or raw physical strength, as a leader. Those who can establish a position of authority will tend to try to preserve it. Religion is one of the most effective tools toward that end, in that it defines a body of rules (or laws, if you will) governing the behavior of the community that cannot be challenged. So organized religion is at its essence a tool for social control and for the maintenance of the positions of power of those at the top of the social hierarchy, regardless of what the adherents of the religion may claim, or actually believe, is the purpose of the religion. (NB: If it isn't already clear, I am speaking here about organized systems of religion as opposed to the personal superstitions of individuals.) The tendency of religion toward "traditions that are not so good" is a feature, not a bug; and the notion that religion is meant to seek truth just makes it all the more enticing, and thus more effective as a tool for social control. Of course, there are forms of organized religion that aspire to equality of all. But they are the exceptions that have deviated from the usual order. Dr Ambedkar was unsparing in his analysis of M.K. Gandhi on this point. Gandhi preached equality to the Western audience while hewing to Hindu orthodoxy to a local audience.
I only found out about this from reading and hearing Arundhati Roy talking about it. for example:
Religions are prone to all sorts of nonsense but the intent of the religion itself is not to create bad traditions that exploit people. That is an end result of process of maintaining the religion. Religions start with an intent to do something well. I already mentioned feudalism to represent social hierarchy in my previous post.
I remember for many years that I said organised religions are prone to a lot of corruption. Well, this may be true. But unorganised religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are just as much prone to social evils as the organised religions. Both Hinduism and Buddhism are the biggest unorganised religions but if you examine the social hierarchy structure of India and Tibet and extent of misogyny in Japan until 50 years ago then you have the answers. Human beings can be exploitive even at local level. They do not need a direct authority to do so.
That is 100% correct and as you said that is a feature of human beings. So I am not sure if religions are only prone to be corrupted or political systems as well. I usually do not see western people so closely examining and critiquing political systems as they examine religions.
This is one of the reasons why I particularly dislike western people and their stupid condescending attitudes toward Indian or non-western people of Asia and African countries. Sitting on your couch and thinking about state of social justice in India with quick googling of the word dalit is not going to give you any accurate picture.
Casteism was until recently a feature of almost all religious people in India (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and even Christians) however it did not become such repressive system until British colonialist started putting a lot of pressure on Indian society by draining out resources. That said things have improved a lot since 1947 to the extent that the recovery measures have become exploitive for non-dalits who do not have reservations. The current dalits such as Mayawati (who is ex-chief minister of India's biggest province or the current president of India) enjoy a lot of privileges. So much that there are statues of living dalits worth 100s millions of dollars and parks dedicated to them. 50% of the jobs are already reserved for Dalits and tribals. In my own hometown I could not have stood for election as a member of Parliament because the seat was reserved for Dalits and has been for over 25 years. Ambedkar was totally wrong about Gandhi (Gandhi was not a Brahmin or kshatriye either). Ambedkar derived a living out of his one single fight while Gandhi fought for a much bigger cause. Gandhi did more to liberate the conditions of Dalits than any other person in modern India. That is one of the reasons why Gandhi is hated by the Hindu right wingers and traditionalist upper caste people.
And not all forms of traditional Hinduism was riddled with rigorous casteism. It was more a feature of Vaishnavism (which became biggest sect by 11th century) than other sects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 29, 2018 13:41:41 GMT
The adamant rejection of all speculation is the position that is not rational. Speculation is a perfectly rational exercise. You have it the wrong way around. Quite many atheists are severely mentally retarded or have copied the papers of severely mentally retarded people, otherwise the attitude could not develop that speculation is "irrational." The atheists who say that all speculation is irrational in principle only exist in your dumb-ass imagination. I've met other atheists, intelligent ones, who would be surprised to learn that you are not entirely correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 29, 2018 13:51:40 GMT
The adamant rejection of all speculation is the position that is not rational. Speculation is a perfectly rational exercise. You have it the wrong way around. Quite many atheists are severely mentally retarded or have copied the papers of severely mentally retarded people, otherwise the attitude could not develop that speculation is "irrational." Blind faith in science has many adherents who wouldn't understand proof anyway if they saw it, so it's laughable that they depend on proof for everything. Simple minds want a simple universe and complain when they're told it isn't. ==~~~=*=~~~== I suspect Buddhism is much like anything else in that many of the people in it have differing notions what it all means depending on their various skills in communication and abstract thought.
There is a basic requirement in Christianity, that an adherent have faith in Christ and believe that Jesus died for man's sins. I "suspect" Buddhism requires faith in Nirvana, karma and reincarnation. All speculation is not rational. It is not rational to speculate that fairies dance in the forest at midnight. In fact, it's rather silly. Do you have "proof" that atheists are wrong? There can be too much of most things, even speculation. There can be too much watching movies. There are things science cannot solve. If everyone agrees that they need to build a bird house, science can help. If they cannot agree whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler, or a badminton court, then science is not use at all. That is the problem with most issues in society. There is no agreement what the problem is. That's why science has not solved them. It isn't because people need to be more scientific, it's because science can't deal with personal preferences. The atheists who make trouble, and not all of them do, don't even understand what is going on, or what it is that needs to be proved. |
|
