Non-Theism: Thoughts, Feelings, Explainations?

**SageTree** · 08-14-2010, 12:30 PM

Hello my Friends,

First of all:
Non-Theism: Thoughts, Feelings, Explainations?

That is the simple version of the question.....

Second of all I'm placing this in HT because I would like to hear ALL opinions and not just spiritual ones. This is a question about a concept or idea, not necessarily Buddhism, however I'm attaching an article (below) I found while searching for something to pass on to said questioner......

First a little person back log....

During a private talk with a member here I was asked about God and Buddhism. It's something I kinda of decided to 'Let it Be' and at some point was also inspired by this story's question:

Quote:

A man went to the Buddha insisting on answers to these questions, but the Buddha instead put a question to him: "If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"
"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance."
Life does not depend on the knowing how we got here or what will happen after we are gone. Whether we hold these views about these things or not, there is still suffering, sorrow, old age, sickness, and death.

So from time to time I read a little, and since I was prompted I found an interesting article when searching "Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta",which was the member current belief.

As a side, I feel that the later most closely identify with my idea of 'God', should I say to some one, 'this is basically It-ness' and I might add a 'verbness' clause at the end of it too

Anyways.... I was asking,

I read this article and came across the term 'non-theist'. And I was wondering what anyone thought about this idea/explanation.

I don't agree with all the ways Buddhism is described, in the follow article, and there seems to be a Abrahamic-bias to "god" in the writing, but sways back and forth into neutral ground enough to enjoy.

In conclusion to this:

The dichotomy of the 'by god' 'for god' and 'with god' didn't quite click for me, but I had an interesting thought on theist, atheist, agnostic, non-theist.

Theist: Yes there is God
Athest: No there isn't God/ Doesn't consider it
Agnostic: There may or may not be a God/ How can I know it?
Non-Theist: I don't need to know.

And frankly that is how I feel at this point of my life. I feel very reverent to the moment, to serving others, to love and have compassion. I am full of thanks and gratitude and try to see each moment as a blessing for further growth in Goodness. 'God' in my mind is impersonal and formless, abiding with the idea of One-ness and a non-dual view of Existence. We are all interconnected. 'God' is a word in the end and if you tell me It's blue, I really can't argue, like if you'd pointed to the sky and said red.... but it's a term we are familiar with for better or worse

Basically I think I do right by the Cosmos and It by me. If my thoughts are energy and I feel them in a meditative/prayerful awareness, then doesn't the Universe pick up on them? My point is, if I don't feel different from the All, then who am I praying to?

Hence my interest in non-theism. I feel it's me believing (ironically labeling) what I'm doing as alright and naming who or why I'm doing it for is more of a matter of emphasis of terminology.

The point is I know in my heart what's going on it my head and going ape shit with a label maker doesn't really satisfy my connectedness. But I'm still interested in what this term means in your understanding.

Thanks for taking the time to read the article below, if you do and if you feel like you just want to comment on the topic with out the article that is fine as well.

Namaste
SageTree

Quote:

Theism, Atheism and Non-Theism in Buddhism
By Saberi Roy

There are several opinions on the theistic status of Buddhism with the descriptions of Buddhism ranging from atheistic, non theistic to theistic. The fundamental philosophy of Buddhism seems to deny the concept of a personal God, although it is controversial whether Buddhism denies an impersonal form of God. Buddhist scholar Nyanaponika Thera1 suggested that conceptions of impersonal godhead such as world soul are excluded from Buddhism and this has been explained on teachings related to unsubstantiality or non-self. Despite this, Buddhism does provide an exposition on different higher and lower realms of existence even though the focus is on impermanence. That way Buddhism could be described as pantheism associated with all forms of existence. Considering a pantheist explanation, which is highly probable in Buddhist philosophy, Buddhism could be considered as theistic instead of atheistic. In a review article on the work of W.C. Smith, Robert Florida2 pointed out that Smith argued that Buddhists do believe in God. Smith of course, takes a broader view of what it means to be an atheist and suggests that an atheist has lost all hope and has no sense of justice, truth or beauty. Smith may have stretched the definition of atheism a bit too far, which should strictly mean, ‘no belief in God or no belief that God or gods exist’. Smith argues for a theistic basis of Buddhism considering the Buddhist concepts of nirvana and the concept of dharma as parallel to the Western concept of God or divinity3 .

Mahayana Buddhism went a bit further by accepting Buddha as the God and William James4 has pointed out that Buddha himself standing as God as accepted by some Buddhist followers suggests that Buddhism is atheistic5 . However this again is a problematic argument as accepting Buddha as God could mean that Buddhism is theistic and atheistic at the same time! Yet Mahayana Buddhism is a later version of Buddhism and the Theravada school still follows the teachings of Buddha in its essence6 . Some scholars have used the term ‘non-theistic’ to define Buddhism as atheism could mean a wider range of vices and theism is too focused on God and especially the concept of a personal God. In the West, the concept of God, largely framed by Christianity is a personal concept representing a super human being. This is largely against the spirit of Buddhism which emphasizes karma or an individual’s own actions. Divine control or providence, according to Buddhism can easily suggest that individuals are not responsible for their moral or ethical actions and this would be bad for moral development of human beings7 . Some scholars have suggested that God in Buddhism simply means enlightened beings or Buddhas rather than any other supreme being, so individuals are capable of gaining Buddhahood when they achieve true enlightenment and impart the knowledge to others. Buddhism through the ages has worshiped many such gradations of Buddha despite the fact that there is no belief of God in Buddhism. The focus is on personal karma, or one’s own actions rather than being overtly dependent on God, and also one’s efforts towards nirvana or enlightenment and the emphasis is also on jnana through meditative reflection and striving towards higher refinement of consciousness, salvation and deliverance 8. The main reason for which Buddha wanted to avoid God seems to be an emphasis on one’s own moral efforts and strife or aims towards moral and spiritual fulfillment. By eschewing the idea of God, individuals take more personal moral responsibility for their actions and thus Buddhism is about independence and attaining morality not by praying or dependence on divine providence but by one’s own efforts and actions. The ultimate goal is to attain salvation through constant efforts, morally correct behavior and meditation.

Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta may be completely different schools and one opposed the other vehemently with Buddha excluding all unsubtantiality from his discussion, yet they have at least something in common as both Advaita and Buddhism directed attention towards the individual and the individual is central or at the core of the moral philosophy of both the religions. Although Buddhism could be considered as more ‘politically correct’ and pragmatic that it kept away from all things that we don’t know about such as illusion or maya or world-soul etc, Advaita provided a more comprehensive explanation of God as present in the individual, an emphasis again common in both the philosophical positions. The moral strength of the individual is important in both the systems and also a pantheistic approach to the question of God, with God as also found in humanity and the individual is present in both the religions. Thus both Buddhism and Advaita are individualistic philosophies, almost comparable to an individualistic psychology9 where the focus is on what level of spiritual progress an individual can attain through his personal efforts. Yet Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have basic differences as Buddhism is pluralistic and Advaita is monistic. According to Advaita everything is the Brahman which is non dualistic and consciousness encompassing the entire universe. In Buddhism, the subjective-objective divide is blurred and the identity of the self remains undefined and merely represented by the senses. Yet Advaita postulates that the whole universe is the self and the distinction between the universe and the self is also blurred in this case. Thus to summarize, both Buddhism and Advaita are pantheistic and individualistic, both recognizes the primacy of the self and the close relation between the subjective and the objective. Yet Advaita defines all pluralities in terms of the self or a monistic philosophy of the self as in essence the whole of the universe whereas Buddhism postulates the self as without identity and probably represented by a plurality of senses, so pluralities are defined in terms of the self in Buddhism, a diametrically opposite philosophical position when compared with Advaita Vedanta.

Considering the arguments that scholars provide on whether Buddhism is theistic, atheistic or non-theistic, compatible explanations could be provided for all these three philosophical positions. Buddhism has been argued as perfectly theistic simply because it is based on the notion of nirvana and dharma and is thus guided by a moral law, and a focus on moral law is the basis of all religions. Morality is about doing what is right and ethical for the sake of spiritual evolution and in so far as Buddhism emphasizes attaining enlightenment and teaching the same to others, Buddhism is theistic as it focuses on the same core of moral and spiritual development that forms the basis of theism or all religious systems. Buddhism is also theistic as it could be described as a sort of pantheism with the blurred distinction of the subject and the object and the subject being represented by pluralities. However the distinct and intentional avoidance of a creator God, perhaps to dodge the God related questions, brings out the more pragmatic and almost political approach of Buddhism. By denying or de-emphasizing the role of God, Buddha has managed to make religion less deterministic and infused a sense of responsibility in the karmic contribution of the individual. The no-God formula definitely makes Buddhism atheistic in a certain way and it is compatible with Buddha’s emphasis on individual striving for enlightenment by following the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold path of righteousness. Yet the whole emphasis on righteousness undermines any atheistic undertone that Buddhist philosophy may portray. This is the main reason for which many scholars try to maintain a balance and remain non-committal to either side of the debate suggesting that Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic but simply non-theistic. Non-theism is the in-between position between atheism and theism. It does not carry all the negative implications of atheism and yet carries with it the theistic emphasis on moral value. Maybe, non-theism is a more moderate and better word to describe Buddhism yet it is also inadequate as Buddhism does embody not just a part of theism or atheism that non-theism would imply, but Buddhism seems to encompass nearly all or most of theism and atheism. This is the problem in trying to define, categorize or pin down Buddhism, it seems to be both theistic and atheistic at the same time. Of course, in a way, the different schools or divisions of Buddhism adds to this confusion as Mahayana is more theistic and Theravada is atheistic. Yet, it can be said that Buddhism is theistic in its essence and atheistic in its approach, theistic in theory and atheistic in practice and even theistic in its goal and atheistic in its philosophical position.

Buddhism remains completely opposite to Christianity in its de-emphasis of a creator God but its moral basis remains similar and compatible with all religions. Its philosophical denial or avoidance of God issues brings it closest to monistic religions of the east, including the Advaita Vedanta although at the same time places it exactly opposite to such religions as Buddhism is finally about striving to attain perfection ‘for God’ rather than ‘with God’ as in Advaita Vedanta or ‘by God’ as in Islam or Christianity. So, ultimately humans have a goal to attain enlightenment and perfection through nirvana and meditation but we do this for our purpose of reaching Godhood which is essential in Advaita and in Buddhism, yet unlike Advaita, Buddhism does not see God as inherently merged in the self and consciousness10 and representing the entire universe at the same time yet the concept of enlightenment/nirvana in Buddhism as is Moksha/liberation in Advaita, are similar and the self is able to reach perfection and an ideal condition through practice. Scholar David Loy11 however suggested in his book and papers that the difference between Moksha in Advaita and Nirvana in Buddhism is that of perspective as the Buddhist explanation and approach towards Nirvana is more phenomenological and experiential and the Vedantist explanation towards Moksha is objective as Moksha is about detachment, taking a view from outside the illusion of reality. Advaita Vedanta emphasizes on an objective reality and Buddhism adopts a subjective reality.

Thus it can be suggested that Buddhism is a more practice based rather than a theory based religion and although it is in practice atheistic, it is completely theistic in its theory and aim. In fact, the theism-atheism-nontheism perspectives of Buddhism aid in emphasizing the role of the individual making Buddhism a deeply subjective and almost individualistic or psychological religion.

JcP · 08-14-2010, 02:15 PM

that quote always bothers me. Because it assumes the universe/cosmic self (in that scenario) is the doctor. It also assumes that knowing the context of one's suffering is not important...which I disagree with. Frankly, it seems like the universe (cosmic self) is the fucker who shot me with the arrow and is now saying "don't worry who shot you..it's not important." You know? haha.

If I know what tribe the arrow came from, I can be precise about what poison was used. If I know who shot the arrow, I would either be at peace with my imminent death or recognize justice for past wrongs. If I knew who made the arrow it could help my family track down those responsible. Same for the poison.

I know this is a bit nit-picky, but, frankly, I find it hard to spend/devote my life to the overcoming of suffering when I was born into this world...and have no answers. I have no reason to have faith in any which way other than my own feelings (which are contradicted by billions of other people of other faiths), and at the end of the day have no idea why the fuck I have to wake up every day and struggle for enlightenment...the fuck did I do to not have it in the first place? lol.

Who caused my suffering? Why is there suffering? Why can I not choose to end all suffering? Why is there war? Why am I who I am? etc etc etc.

While its easy to dismiss these questions as arbitrary and not important for the task at hand, I think they are extremely important for the task at hand.

If I know who causes suffering, I know if I have the power to end it. If I know why there is suffering, it would ease my frustration and allow me to focus on overcoming it. If I know why I do not have the power to end suffering, I would not feel as helpless. Etc etc etc.

anyway a tad off topic, but it's linked to non-theism. "I do not know" is okay with my sensibility (as it's what I say on a daily basis). "I do not need to know" is anathema to me, especially when considering the questions like "why am I here?" and "what is my purpose?"

Xil · 08-14-2010, 02:43 PM

i went from a devotedly theist child (raised by Catholics) to a staunch atheist (rebelling against the bs i saw in the Catholic church), and now the pendulum has settled in the middle, and i am a non-theist. The funny part is i get more hostility for this stance (or lack of stance) than the other two.

its like people think that by not giving a fuck you somehow belittle there beliefs, while even disagreeing with them affirms there beliefs. i dunno just a thought.

**SageTree** · 08-14-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

that quote always bothers me.

anyway a tad off topic, but it's linked to non-theism. "I do not know" is okay with my sensibility (as it's what I say on a daily basis). "I do not need to know" is anathema to me, especially when considering the questions like "why am I here?" and "what is my purpose?"

I think you're really telling me that is all the further you read

eh? eh?

No kidding Brother... I DO believe there is a say like:

Quote:

"All metaphors fail under scrutiny"

I personally feel they are independent of each other and I don't need to know why I'm here to know what my purpose is. For that matter, I don't need to know to have a profound respect for my life and each moment I get to experience it.

It's a question I feel has more toil that good in it and this might be crazy, but the less I think about the concept of Creator, and the more I focus on being aware, loving and thankful the closer I feel to God and my Purpose.

Thanks for your time efforts and thoughts

Namaste
SageTree

**SageTree** · 08-14-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xil

i went from a devotedly theist child (raised by Catholics) to a staunch atheist (rebelling against the bs i saw in the Catholic church), and now the pendulum has settled in the middle, and i am a non-theist. The funny part is i get more hostility for this stance (or lack of stance) than the other two.

its like people think that by not giving a fuck you somehow belittle there beliefs, while even disagreeing with them affirms there beliefs. i dunno just a thought.

Would you care to define the label if you feel you could, that is really what I'm interested in , just a few sentences good sir!!!

The Rev · 08-14-2010, 03:28 PM

The analogy of the poison arrow suggests that the man wants to understand what's going on, not just what needs to be done. I think, if you are going to have a religion of any kind, you do not want to discourage that need to know in any way. When you do, you are left with obedience substituting for an active participation. Blind obedience is not the proper path for a being with a critical and reasoning mind.

The Rev

my_scatterheart · 08-14-2010, 03:44 PM

I have a problem with most all "god" talk.
We are separatists. Political parties, sexual orientation, religion. They are all devices to keep Others at arms distance, and it works well in that regard. Non-theism is just another group to lump all those that didn't get rounded up in the first four or five go-arounds. So in that regard, the term doesn't mean much of anything to me.
"Non-Theist" is misleading. It seems like it is to say "Without God". But to say "I don't need to know." is not equivalent. Here's where I find major fault not only with definitions, but this term in particular. These definitions we create for ourselves, in religion specifically, lead us to believe that everything is not transitory. We are not one religion.
Our definitions hold us in places. We don't see things as fluidly as we sometimes like to tell ourselves we do. You stand in one place, lets call it Christianity. In young adulthood you move, and you take up residence in Buddhism. For years you feel comfortable there, but you need a change of scenery, so you walk towards the coast. And with your feet at the edge of the world as you know it, you settle in Agnosticism. That's cool. It's all fine and well. But the way we've been told to see things does not allow you to view the transitory moments as equal residences, because it has been fleeting. The places we've traipsed through getting from Christianity to Buddhism are religions in themselves, imo. S'why I don't think the definitions are helpful at all to the Understanding we claim we're in pursuit of. Pretend you're swimming. If there will be definitions, mold them into one. Fluidity. And if you can't mold them into one, make a sentence. And if you can't just trim it to a sentence, write a fucking novel. The point is that it doesn't matter, except to allow yourself the freedom to do whatever you need in order to put the pen down satisfied.
Every person has their own religion. Every person's religion is changed with every moment they continue to exist. A hyphenated word describes nothing of that largeness. And it probably never will.
/ramblefest'10

**SageTree** · 08-14-2010, 03:51 PM

I believed it to be a list of priorities not an 'un' invitation to investigate. That is ALL Buddhism is in a way. A practice for awakening to better our observations.

#1 get that arrow out, that is simple enough...

No where in the story does it say, "but don't try to figure out how to treat the wound or do justice afterwards."

Well actually it sort of does:

Quote:

" until the problems are solved, these questions are of secondary importance."....

And of 'secondary importance' I don't feel it means don't think of another thing until you solved suffering. Like I said, I believe it as a list of priorities.

Quote:

...... Whether we hold these views about these things or not, there is still suffering, sorrow, old age, sickness, and death.

I feel when I focus on these 'arrows' all of the big questions cure themselves as I mosey on down the path. I have ideas and feelings about what I've experienced and allegorically I feel those 'arrows' cover the big questions for me.

Suffering = unsatisfactoriness in dealing with changes.
Sorrow= hardship
Old Age= How long do I got?
Sickness= How well will I be able to enjoy myself while I'm here?/ Healthy living practices
Death= What happens after death?

I find that when I practice these things I cope with change, strive through hardships, and thankful and use my time well with other and for myself until I'm not able, I take steps to have healthy living mind body soul and realationships And Death.... but who can really but too sure about this one, but I have personal investigations into my experience over this topic as well.

Essentially that covers a lot of bases for me. But we are different and stories impact us differently I suppose.

I'm maybe regretting posting that story because no one is really answering with opinions past that point

I don't want pages of talking about a metaphor... well the metaphor of the story

Thanks Rev

Namaste
SageTree

Xil · 08-14-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageTree

Would you care to define the label if you feel you could, that is really what I'm interested in , just a few sentences good sir!!!

hmmm, i'll give it a shot. though it wont be great because i've held myself dogmatically, rigidly to a spiritual belief in the past and i've come to realize that this inhibits real spiritual freedom and growth.

i wont try to define others, just myself. a task i still view as ultimately impossible but all around less of an offense.

for me non-theism is very much related to a concept like the Dao. All things are one, united. whether you want to claim they are united by a god or just buy the fact that they exist, they are still united. if you think of something it exists as a concept, if you see something it exists as a perception, but either way it exists and it falls under the guise of reality.
for me non-theism is accepting that all things are united, and avoiding what i see as the inconsequential and unknowable details. i'd rather focus on the implications than the details. when you see the opposite in everything, when you see the way in which all things flow seamlessly into one another, the way in which all of reality supports the rest in a beautiful co dependence you start to respect reality, and want to live in accordance with this natural flow of things.

when i drive a car i'm enjoying the car not thinking of the manufacturer, when i smoke herb i'm doing it for the high, not for the growing process. i'd rather know how the car works, how the herb effects my mind, than how it came to be.

not really all here right now, i'll try to give a more comprehensive/intelligible post later.

**SageTree** · 08-14-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by my_scatterheart

I have a problem with most all "god" talk.
We are separatists. Political parties, sexual orientation, religion. They are all devices to keep Others at arms distance, and it works well in that regard. Non-theism is just another group to lump all those that didn't get rounded up in the first four or five go-arounds. So in that regard, the term doesn't mean much of anything to me.
"Non-Theist" is misleading. It seems like it is to say "Without God". But to say "I don't need to know." is not equivalent. Here's where I find major fault not only with definitions, but this term in particular. These definitions we create for ourselves, in religion specifically, lead us to believe that everything is not transitory. We are not one religion.
Our definitions hold us in places. We don't see things as fluidly as we sometimes like to tell ourselves we do. You stand in one place, lets call it Christianity. In young adulthood you move, and you take up residence in Buddhism. For years you feel comfortable there, but you need a change of scenery, so you walk towards the coast. And with your feet at the edge of the world as you know it, you settle in Agnosticism. That's cool. It's all fine and well. But the way we've been told to see things does not allow you to view the transitory moments as equal residences, because it has been fleeting. The places we've traipsed through getting from Christianity to Buddhism are religions in themselves, imo. S'why I don't think the definitions are helpful at all to the Understanding we claim we're in pursuit of. Pretend you're swimming. If there will be definitions, mold them into one. Fluidity. And if you can't mold them into one, make a sentence. And if you can't just trim it to a sentence, write a fucking novel. The point is that it doesn't matter, except to allow yourself the freedom to do whatever you need in order to put the pen down satisfied.
Every person has their own religion. Every person's religion is changed with every moment they continue to exist. A hyphenated word describes nothing of that largeness. And it probably never will.
/ramblefest'10

Thanks for a really nice read.

These few sentence really jump out at my understanding.

My respect for Buddhism comes in the words of Buddha saying "everything changes, even my Teachings are only a boat (understanding) to make it across the river, nothing else".

Language is a skillful means for as you say, 'feeling satisfied' and I would add, also can be a tool if we understand what is worth saying. I ironically type all this out because I wish to talk about things and sometimes that takes labels. Buddhist philosophy would call this Relative Truth, that hold temporary meaning in the moment. And the irony comes in on the other side as Absolute Truths which are better Known and practiced than put into words. But it states accepting relative worth of giving it a go.

So in other words, 'the journey is the destination' like statement about traipsing really makes a lot of sense and is why I think "A practicing X" is much more fitting that a 'I am a X'.

Rebirth .... believe me I'm tying it together just wait

.......can often be a heady concept of much debate, but on a micro level we are only stuck in past lives because we continue to look backwards at who we were, instead of what we are. The metaphor is a films frames, and our recking is the thing that makes them flip fast enough to believe it's all linear and never changing.

More words right.

Thanks Scatter, I quite enjoyed that!!! and I feel satisfied

I appreciate you indulging the question even though 'godly' talks aren't your favourite cup of tea.

In kind
SageTree

JcP · 08-14-2010, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageTree

I think you're really telling me that is all the further you read

eh? eh?

I kept reading until the article!

**SageTree** · 08-15-2010, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

I kept reading until the article!

grassy-ass senior, good to know

The story I wanted to share instead of the arrow story actually is, I'm sure, a perennial parable, but the way I've heard it was like this. My problem was I couldn't cite it so I wouldn't use it....

anyways...

A busy man approached the Buddha one day and said,'Does God exist?'
The Buddha replied,'What would you do differently if God did exist?'
'But what if God doesn't exists?'
To which the Buddha replied,'What would you do differently if God didn't exist?'

Perhaps that catches the essence of 'I don't need to know' a little better.

I love, live, serve, meditate and give thanks. What else can I guy do to honour the place where he lives?

**SageTree** · 08-15-2010, 12:25 AM

Terry, you punk I know about YOU and you're actually THE atheist I was hoping would chime in on the label "non-theist" Is that with in the bounds of atheism to you, or is is stating something completely different? I suppose it might be a dumb question, but it sounds like you refute the the Christian God in the back log of posts I've read. Does any other wordy religion or spiritual path make you want to puke less than others? Thanks for listening, if not, I understand. I am always curious because I don't meet outspoken atheist Hindus or Anglos that specifically go 'against' one god vs all gods. I'm sure the bases of understanding weather for or against is certainly influenced by where we live, so perhaps this is a likely variable in the gods that take form....or don't take form

Again, this might not interest you at all, but I like to understand people and my questions are only interest from my perspective, I'm only listening and not going to judge.

In kind
SageTree

**SageTree** · 08-15-2010, 01:36 PM

Thanks Terry for your input.

I want to put it out there that Atheist Buddhist are pretty damned common. If not half of the norm in any given Sangha.

Personal reflection only:
This is why I'm interested in non-theist, but Buddhism in my opinion is a Atheist philosophy, and that 'god-ish-ness-ly' is more a screw up of trying to describe the "All" feeling that is attributed to a non-dual idea of existence. It's a reverence, but not worship, if that makes sense. It's like knowing thanks vs a belief that we're bestowed with graciousness.

But anyways, DUDE, I don't want to seem like I'm proselytizing you at all,, I promise, and I'll just leave it at here are two books recommended by the teacher in my sangha. That you may find interesting? There aren't many 'faiths' where this is a choice and that is pretty cool imo.

Humbly offered and in gracious thanks for your answer,
SageTree

JcP · 08-16-2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageTree

A busy man approached the Buddha one day and said,'Does God exist?'
The Buddha replied,'What would you do differently if God did exist?'
'But what if God doesn't exists?'
To which the Buddha replied,'What would you do differently if God didn't exist?'

yea I've heard this one too. Still bothers me a bit tho, lol. I think an answer to these questions would help inform my life.

In other words...while my behavior might (not sure, actually) be the same, my experience in doing the behavior would not.

SmokeaJoint · 08-16-2010, 12:31 AM

Non Theism, I guess that applies to me.

To me, religion is whatever you do to center yourself, to find a balance in life, to help gain focus and purpose, and to tell one's self that their time on this rock isn't wasted. Whether you have a single deity, or many, or none at all, all that should be important is finding happiness and comfort. For me, that's knowing that the mark I leave is of my own choosing and of my own will and actions.

**SageTree** · 08-16-2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

In other words...while my behavior might (not sure, actually) be the same, my experience in doing the behavior would not.

How do you feel it would be different if you could place some words with that thought?

JcP · 08-16-2010, 12:54 AM

lets take a random activity: taking a shit.

If there is a God: taking a shit becomes funny. "LOL...God. You're funny. Look at what you have your children doing...how did you come up with this one!"

If there isn't a God: taking a shit becomes a mundane unexplained phenomena that perplexes me. In an infinite (?) universe, why is THIS how things must be? Why must I engage in this ridiculous activity?

Option #2: the question "why can't I fly?"

If there is a God: It would at least give me the solace in knowing when I die I have someone to go up to and be like "yo...what's up with limiting me?"

If there isn't a God: I have the question of "why am I limited, if there is no God?" along with all the questions that go along with a self-creating system.

Also, if there is a God, I wouldn't feel meditation and prayer to be as pointless as I do on occasion...I tend to go through cycles where I do it a lot...then come to a question or paradox that, frankly, turns me off of the whole thing....then I come back to it until I remember the paradox again hehe.

So I'd probably meditate more and be more dedicated to spiritual pursuits...I wouldn't care as much in terms of career or worldly endeavors.

But by far, it would be most impressive upon my OUTLOOK, moreso than my actual actions.

**SageTree** · 08-16-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeaJoint

Non Theism, I guess that applies to me.

To me, religion is whatever you do to center yourself, to find a balance in life, to help gain focus and purpose, and to tell one's self that their time on this rock isn't wasted. Whether you have a single deity, or many, or none at all, all that should be important is finding happiness and comfort. For me, that's knowing that the mark I leave is of my own choosing and of my own will and actions.

I definitely believe there are some Universal Physics or Realities that can come back and bite you in the ass. How you live you life follows you around and catches up with you much in how you live it. That isnt to say 'shit doesn't happen' but generally speaking. If we could remember all the times in our life we could likely remember a time when we've upset someone as much as some one has us, made mistakes, done justice, payed it forward, or fed/been fed when we really need it, things to that effect.

It's funny and I say our mental states proceed action, so I DO bear in mind I'm considering these types of happenings in utter amazement how some things are so well timed while others so ill timed, but you get what I poking at?

**SageTree** · 08-16-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JcP

lets take a random activity: taking a shit.

If there is a God: taking a shit becomes funny. "LOL...God. You're funny. Look at what you have your children doing...how did you come up with this one!"

If there isn't a God: taking a shit becomes a mundane unexplained phenomena that perplexes me. In an infinite (?) universe, why is THIS how things must be? Why must I engage in this ridiculous activity?

Option #2: the question "why can't I fly?"

If there is a God: It would at least give me the solace in knowing when I die I have someone to go up to and be like "yo...what's up with limiting me?"

If there isn't a God: I have the question of "why am I limited, if there is no God?" along with all the questions that go along with a self-creating system.

Also, if there is a God, I wouldn't feel meditation and prayer to be as pointless as I do on occasion...I tend to go through cycles where I do it a lot...then come to a question or paradox that, frankly, turns me off of the whole thing....then I come back to it until I remember the paradox again hehe.

So I'd probably meditate more and be more dedicated to spiritual pursuits...I wouldn't care as much in terms of career or worldly endeavors.

But by far, it would be most impressive upon my OUTLOOK, moreso than my actual actions.

Well right on man thanks for your thoughts and how you'd go about it.

I don't really have a rebuttal since they are your feelings and views.

I only want to ask and clarify that your saying you basically feel you'd still live the same life, but the heart/spirit/intention/zest would be lacking?

08-14-2010, 02:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Xil OD'ing on sobriety Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mizzura Posts: 3,334 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1,036 Thanked 1,158 Times in 717 Posts	i went from a devotedly theist child (raised by Catholics) to a staunch atheist (rebelling against the bs i saw in the Catholic church), and now the pendulum has settled in the middle, and i am a non-theist. The funny part is i get more hostility for this stance (or lack of stance) than the other two. its like people think that by not giving a fuck you somehow belittle there beliefs, while even disagreeing with them affirms there beliefs. i dunno just a thought. __________________ "we'll show these fascists what a couple of hillbillies can do"

08-14-2010, 03:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
The Rev Clear Light Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: In my head, somewhere. Posts: 17,865 Thanks: 5,018 Thanked 5,420 Times in 2,865 Posts	The analogy of the poison arrow suggests that the man wants to understand what's going on, not just what needs to be done. I think, if you are going to have a religion of any kind, you do not want to discourage that need to know in any way. When you do, you are left with obedience substituting for an active participation. Blind obedience is not the proper path for a being with a critical and reasoning mind. The Rev __________________ Budforce - My Friend August 29, 1973- May 25, 2012

08-14-2010, 03:44 PM	#7 (permalink)
my_scatterheart Today, I am alive. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 3,565 Thanks: 1,486 Thanked 3,328 Times in 1,870 Posts	I have a problem with most all "god" talk. We are separatists. Political parties, sexual orientation, religion. They are all devices to keep Others at arms distance, and it works well in that regard. Non-theism is just another group to lump all those that didn't get rounded up in the first four or five go-arounds. So in that regard, the term doesn't mean much of anything to me. "Non-Theist" is misleading. It seems like it is to say "Without God". But to say "I don't need to know." is not equivalent. Here's where I find major fault not only with definitions, but this term in particular. These definitions we create for ourselves, in religion specifically, lead us to believe that everything is not transitory. We are not one religion. Our definitions hold us in places. We don't see things as fluidly as we sometimes like to tell ourselves we do. You stand in one place, lets call it Christianity. In young adulthood you move, and you take up residence in Buddhism. For years you feel comfortable there, but you need a change of scenery, so you walk towards the coast. And with your feet at the edge of the world as you know it, you settle in Agnosticism. That's cool. It's all fine and well. But the way we've been told to see things does not allow you to view the transitory moments as equal residences, because it has been fleeting. The places we've traipsed through getting from Christianity to Buddhism are religions in themselves, imo. S'why I don't think the definitions are helpful at all to the Understanding we claim we're in pursuit of. Pretend you're swimming. If there will be definitions, mold them into one. Fluidity. And if you can't mold them into one, make a sentence. And if you can't just trim it to a sentence, write a fucking novel. The point is that it doesn't matter, except to allow yourself the freedom to do whatever you need in order to put the pen down satisfied. Every person has their own religion. Every person's religion is changed with every moment they continue to exist. A hyphenated word describes nothing of that largeness. And it probably never will. /ramblefest'10 __________________ Be mindful even if your mind is full. -J. De La Vega

08-15-2010, 12:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
SageTree ~Kalyāṇa-mitrā~ Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: In Love Posts: 23,414 Blog Entries: 26 Thanks: 13,070 Thanked 6,768 Times in 4,664 Posts	Terry, you punk I know about YOU and you're actually THE atheist I was hoping would chime in on the label "non-theist" Is that with in the bounds of atheism to you, or is is stating something completely different? I suppose it might be a dumb question, but it sounds like you refute the the Christian God in the back log of posts I've read. Does any other wordy religion or spiritual path make you want to puke less than others? Thanks for listening, if not, I understand. I am always curious because I don't meet outspoken atheist Hindus or Anglos that specifically go 'against' one god vs all gods. I'm sure the bases of understanding weather for or against is certainly influenced by where we live, so perhaps this is a likely variable in the gods that take form....or don't take form Again, this might not interest you at all, but I like to understand people and my questions are only interest from my perspective, I'm only listening and not going to judge. In kind SageTree __________________ "What's oppressive is letting your life be confined by old definitions of what everything is." -Zen Meister my_scatterheart YaHooka is.... Cannabis lovers from around the world pulling up a comfy chair, picking up a vaporizer, a bong, a brownie, a pipe, or a joint, getting high, stoned, buzzed or healthy. Uniting our minds in conversation...While Portraying a Positive Image of marijuana and marijuana users to the world. Treat your fellow YaHookans with kindness,respect and tolerance. Last edited by SageTree; 08-15-2010 at 12:30 AM.

08-15-2010, 01:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
SageTree ~Kalyāṇa-mitrā~ Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: In Love Posts: 23,414 Blog Entries: 26 Thanks: 13,070 Thanked 6,768 Times in 4,664 Posts	Thanks Terry for your input. I want to put it out there that Atheist Buddhist are pretty damned common. If not half of the norm in any given Sangha. Personal reflection only: This is why I'm interested in non-theist, but Buddhism in my opinion is a Atheist philosophy, and that 'god-ish-ness-ly' is more a screw up of trying to describe the "All" feeling that is attributed to a non-dual idea of existence. It's a reverence, but not worship, if that makes sense. It's like knowing thanks vs a belief that we're bestowed with graciousness. But anyways, DUDE, I don't want to seem like I'm proselytizing you at all,, I promise, and I'll just leave it at here are two books recommended by the teacher in my sangha. That you may find interesting? There aren't many 'faiths' where this is a choice and that is pretty cool imo. Humbly offered and in gracious thanks for your answer, SageTree __________________ "What's oppressive is letting your life be confined by old definitions of what everything is." -Zen Meister my_scatterheart YaHooka is.... Cannabis lovers from around the world pulling up a comfy chair, picking up a vaporizer, a bong, a brownie, a pipe, or a joint, getting high, stoned, buzzed or healthy. Uniting our minds in conversation...While Portraying a Positive Image of marijuana and marijuana users to the world. Treat your fellow YaHookans with kindness,respect and tolerance.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: