buddhism

[Contarini]

One cannot possibly be a Hindu and be an atheist at the same time.

That’s not exactly true. Some of the traditional “astika” (i.e., “orthodox”) schools of Hindu philosophy were atheistic in the sense that they didn’t recognize a Creator God, though I believe that unlike Buddhism they did recognize some sort of spirit-stuff (“purusha”) that was identifiable with Brahman although purely impersonal and not creative. I am not sure that any of these schools are still in existence–in fact I think they either died out or in some cases became theistic. But at one time there was a place for a kind of “atheism” within Hinduism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A source is not necessary. You know that.

No, we don’t know that. On the contrary, if you want to make outrageous claims you need to support them. My guess is that you are working with a very narrow understanding of “theistic,” so feel free to flesh that out a bit.

And if you’ve read a bit, which I guess you have, you know. Hinduism and all its branches including Buddhism are not theistic.

This is the old “pretend not to need evidence because only an ignoramus would disagree with you” dodge. It won’t work here.

Buddhism differs from most forms of Hinduism precisely in being non-theistic.

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

Both Jainism and Brahmanism are theist. Buddhism is atheistic.

That depends on how you’re defining “theist”. In Jainism, there is no entity who created the world out of nothing.

 

[notself]

That depends on how you’re defining “theist”. In Jainism, there is no entity who created the world out of nothing.

While you are correct that Jains do not have a specific Creator God. They do have a concept of the Universe as always existing and eternal, i.e. God like. They also have a concept of the Godhood of each individual who reaches a state of moral perfection.

Jainism believes that universe and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end with respect to time. Universe runs own its own accord by its own cosmic laws. All the substances change or modify their forms continuously. Nothing can be destroyed or created in the universe. There is no need of some one to create or manage the affairs of the universe. Hence Jainism does not believe in God as a creator, survivor, and destroyer of the universe.

However Jainism does believe in God, not as a creator, but as a perfect being. When a person destroys all his karmas, he becomes a liberated soul. He resides in a perfect blissful state in Moksha. He possesses infinite knowledge, infinite vision, infinite power, and infinite bliss. This living being is a God of Jain religion.

Every living being has a potential to become God. Hence Jains do not have one God, but Jain Gods are innumerable and their number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation. fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/jainedu/jaingod.htm

This link gives some of the Gods and Goddesses of the Hindu religion. Click on the icon of Brahma and you will read that He is the Creator of the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

There is no such God concept in Buddhism.

The Vedic religion predated and was contemporaneous to Buddhism. The contemporary Hindu religion is an offshoot of the Vedic religion. Buddhism started in Northern India near what is now known as Nepal. If you look at the map you will note that the Vedic religion had influence over this area at the time of the Buddha.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period

 

[richardwy]

Begin with that which is so. As far as “understandings” of theism, I care not.
As far as that which is so, I care deeply.

Religions/beliefs are discussed from many points of view. The only one worth anything is is it so or no?

Any other grounds fail.

I know because of revelation, reason, and experience.

All this is too important to be spoken of except in the simplest and most direct manner.

 

[Sixtus]

While Christ came to save us all, the Holy Spirit goes where He will and speak to whom-so-ever He choses.

Maybe we would be wise to listen and not to condemn.

 

[Contarini]

Begin with that which is so. As far as “understandings” of theism, I care not.
As far as that which is so, I care deeply.

Religions/beliefs are discussed from many points of view. The only one worth anything is is it so or no?

Any other grounds fail.

I know because of revelation, reason, and experience.

All this is too important to be spoken of except in the simplest and most direct manner.

No, it’s too important to be spoken of except truly and accurately. We need to speak with whatever degree of simplicity or complexity will most adequately express the truth. You have failed miserably at this so far, so you might want to re-examine your commitment to simplicity and directness for their own sake. When they lead you to tell falsehoods (i.e., that Hinduism is atheistic), they are blind guides.

Edwin

 

[richardwy]

Ed, you err.

 

[richardwy]

It’s too important to be spoken of except truly and accurately.

We need to speak with whatever degree of simplicity or complexity will most adequately express the truth.

You have failed miserably at this so far,

so you might want to re-examine your commitment to simplicity and directness for their own sake.

When they lead you to tell falsehoods (i.e., that Hinduism is atheistic), they are blind guides.

Edwin

This will probably come to nothing.

Even so, your 1st two sentences are true.

Your 1st phrase in your 2nd sentence is wrong. The 2nd phrase in your third sentence is, well, I don’t quite know how to respond. My commitment is to love and serve God, help my neighbour, and tell the truth of course. Any well meaning encouragement to examine one’s self cannot help but be taken kindly. Though I do not suppose kindness motivated you to type those words. I think frustration and anger motivated you.

Am I right?

Your 4th sentence is wrong.

Men do not gods make. And men do not make God.

But you know that, and/or you do know of that…

You may say that statement is false. It is true nonetheless.

God does not kow-tow to our beliefs. And becuase 1 or zillion folks say something is so does not make it so.

For folks who cannot or will not cleave to the 1st Commandment, all this becomes amphorous. “Unreal” is not an unapt adjective.

Our “beefs” are rarely with each other. They are usually with God and what he wants from us and for us. When our relationship with God is right, we enjoy right relationships with our brothers. And, of course, they go hand in hand.

Because people do not want to worship and serve him, they come up with alternatives, cover it with gold and call it good. They may use the word God and/or gods, but they either do not mean nor do not know whereof they speak.

 

[Contarini]

Though I do not suppose kindness motivated you to type those words. I think frustration and anger motivated you.

I was certainly frustrated–I wouldn’t say I was angry. You don’t seem interested in an accurate assessment of Hinduism, and it always frustrates me when people don’t care about accuracy because they think their religious presuppositions give them the True Perspective on everything.

Men do not gods make. And men do not make God.

This is not relevant to anything. The question is whether Hindus are atheistic. By the normal meaning of these words–people who do not believe in any supreme being–they are certainly not (or at least few if any are today–some traditional Hindu philosophies could be called atheistic, but they have pretty much died out or become theistic). You are admittedly using the term in an older sense, common back when there were practically no real atheists, so people called anyone who didn’t agree with their view of God an “atheist.” In the context of a world where there are real atheists and the word has taken on a more precise meaning, your use of the word is irresponsible and reckless with regard to the truth.

For folks who cannot or will not cleave to the 1st Commandment, all this becomes amphorous. “Unreal” is not an unapt adjective.

I’m not going to be sidetracked into a discussion of what if anything is true in Hindu belief about God. For the sake of argument, let’s say that they can simply be said to worship a false god or false gods. “Believing in a false god” is not what most people mean by “atheist.” By using the word in this way, you are in effect lying, because you are conveying a completely false impression about what Hindus believe. Even if you think that the God they worship is in fact Nothing, it would be more fairly said that you are an atheist with respect to their God, rather than that they are atheists. Admittedly this is semantics. But semantics are important if we are going to communicate clearly. You have interrupted a discussion of Buddhism by claiming that both Hinduism and Buddhism are atheistic, but you are doing so using a sense of “atheistic” that completely confuses the issue. Essentially you seem to be saying that since neither religion has Christian beliefs about God, the huge differences between them concerning the nature of ultimate reality are essentially unimportant. If you think this, please be so kind as not to talk about these religions at all, since you clearly have no interest in talking about what they actually believe.

Our “beefs” are rarely with each other. They are usually with God and what he wants from us and for us.

It is the oldest trick of self-righteous bigots to claim that people quarreling with them are actually quarreling with God. I am not calling you any names, mind. I am responding to your generalization with another. I don’t actually know how you think the above remark applies to the present discussion, and I am content not to know.

They may use the word God and/or gods, but they either do not mean nor do not know whereof they speak.

Idolatry and atheism are not the same thing. We have two words in our language–why not use both instead of causing confusion by substituting one for the other?

Edwin

 

[stmaria]

God is in Buddhism, and Buddhists don’t worship Buddha. This is a fact of the religion and cannot be debated.

Let me get right to the point. Buddhism is a false religion.

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

 

[notself]

Let me get right to the point. Buddhism is a false religion.

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

Please understand that each religion in the world believes itself to be true and all others to be false. In the case of Christianity, each sect believes itself to be true and all other forms of Christianity to be false.

Your statement therefore is meaningless.

What would have meaning is a statement on how your beliefs have made you a kinder, more compassionate, more moral and ethical person and how it has lead to your day to day happiness.

Be a witness to your faith instead of merely a critic of the faith of others. “If necessary, use words.”

 

[stmaria]

Please understand that each religion in the world believes itself to be true and all others to be false. In the case of Christianity, each sect believes itself to be true and all other forms of Christianity to be false.

Your statement therefore is meaningless.
What would have meaning is a statement on how your beliefs have made you a kinder, more compassionate, more moral and ethical person and how it has lead to your day to day happiness.

Be a witness to your faith instead of merely a critic of the faith of others. “If necessary, use words.”

Is this statement of John meaningless?
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

Is this also meaningless? The words of Jesus?
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”

What about this, meaningless?
John 3:3 “ Amen,amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”

 

[notself]

Is this statement of John meaningless?
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

Is this also meaningless? The words of Jesus?
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”

What about this, meaningless?
John 3:3 “ Amen,amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”

If someone is not a Christian and does not believe that Christianity is true, then the statement is meaningless.

You might find this hard to imagine but people of other faiths are just as sincere in their faith as you are in yours.

It is more important that one lives his or her faith in a manner that wise people will approve and let actions be the witness to the truth of the faith.

 

[stmaria]

If someone is not a Christian and does not believe that Christianity is true, then the statement is meaningless.

You might find this hard to imagine but people of other faiths are just as sincere in their faith as you are in yours.

It is more important that one lives his or her faith in a manner that wise people will approve and let actions be the witness to the truth of the faith.

Would you agree that it is my duty as a Catholic to tell you what the Church teaches? It is my duty as a Christian to tell you what Jesus teaches. Should you choose not to listen, then the destination of your eternal soul is in the hands of God.My conscience is clear. I have done all I can do.

 

[Contarini]

Please understand that each religion in the world believes itself to be true and all others to be false. In the case of Christianity, each sect believes itself to be true and all other forms of Christianity to be false.

Your statement therefore is meaningless.

That’s not logical–clearly the statement has meaning. It may not be an effective form of communication, which is probably what you mean by “meaningful.” But the fact that each religion believes itself to be true does not mean that that belief (in any case, true or false) is meaningless.

Edwin

 

[notself]

Would you agree that it is my duty as a Catholic to tell you what the Church teaches? It is my duty as a Christian to tell you what Jesus teaches. Should you choose not to listen, then the destination of your eternal soul is in the hands of God.My conscience is clear. I have done all I can do.

I understand that you feel it is your duty to bring the word of Christ to all people.

Thank you for your efforts on my behalf.

May you be well and happy.
May you be safe and free from harm.
May you be free from anger and ill will.
May you be at peace.
May your heart be filled with loving kindness.

 

[richardwy]

Essentially you seem to be saying that since neither religion has Christian beliefs about God

No.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with “beliefs.” Do you really think God gives a rip about our vain imaginations in the contemporay sense where the phrase, “Well I believe” is accorded some suasive stature or rhetorical cachet or works as our trump card?

Begin with God. If you do, you will see why they are atheistic.

If you begin with anything else at all, such as “people,” “beliefs,” “culture,” anything else, all religious discussions devolve (as this one has) to talking quite literally “about” in a physical sense the matter at hand. Whether it be true or no becomes beside the point.

Sarte’s benign indifference of the universe is quite different from the Hindu/Buddhist strands, and both are atheistic.

An over simplified example would be to say I believe something exists that shares some of the characteristcs of Ed, but my belief about that something without admitting the true attributes of Ed does not equate with believing, knowing, serving, or loving Ed.

In the end, “believing” in that scheme, becomes equivalent to theism. Yet, it does not correspond to the facts. One cannot have God and not-God at the same time. If its not-God, then that’s a-theistic.

This stuff wasn’t made up by a bunch of folks over several centuries with too much time on their hands, eh?

Now as to the little bit I quoted from what you typed.

You begin with “belief.” Christain belief, but belief nonetheless.

Why not begin with God?

It was not my intent to pull your chain or agitate you. I wan’t looking for a quarrel or fight.

 

[notself]

No.

Sarte’s benign indifference of the universe is quite different from the Hindu/Buddhist strands, and both are atheistic.

It was not my intent to pull your chain or agitate you. I wan’t looking for a quarrel or fight.

Why do you persist in stating that Hinduism is athiestic? I have provided links that explain the Hindu pantheon of Gods including Brahma, the Creator of the Universe, who is part of a Holy Trinity of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu.

Hindus may not worship the Christian God, but they certainly worship many other Gods. This makes them theists.

Why do you have such a problem in simply correcting your error?

 

[richardwy]

And thanks for the links. I’m well aware of what you referred to as the Hindu Pantheon.

My best crack at it was my post prior to yours.

Belief does not a theist make.

Belief in God does a theist make.

If you like to read, give “Varieties of Religious Experience” by William James a crack. He’s got theism right.