buddhism

[notself]

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.

You believe that your God is real and true and the only God. Hindus believe their Gods are real and true and are willing to consider other Gods as real and true.

That is the only difference that I can see between these two theist religions.

Perhaps you can post the definition of theism by William James.

 

[notself]

I googled William James and read a bit of his philosophy which I found rather interesting. It seems that according to him, you believe something is true without facts and if this hypothesis “works” for you then you may assume it to be true.

By this definition, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May we be touched by His Noodly Appendage) is as true as the Christian God.

I realize I was only reading snips. But I am not particularly convinced he had a clear definition of theism. Again, if he did have a definition, I would appreciate you posting it.

Here is a link to his doctrine called Will to Believe,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_Believe_Doctrine

It appears that the Vatican is not a fan of Mr. James’ philosophy.
This is from New Advent.

It has been pointed out that one of the secrets of the popularity of Pragmatism is the belief that in the warfare between religion and Agnosticism the Pragmatists have, somehow, come to the rescue on the side of religious truth (Pratt, “What is Pragmatism”, p. 175). It should be admitted at once that, by temperamental disposition, rather than by force of logic, the Pragmatist is inclined to uphold the vital and social importance of positive religious faith. For him, religion is not a mere attitude of mind, an illumination thrown on facts already ascertained, or a state of feeling which disposes one to place an emotional value on the truths revealed by science. It adds new facts and brings forward new truths which make a difference, and lead to differences, especially in conduct. Whether religions are proved or not, they have approved themselves to the Pragmatist (Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 331). They should be judged by their intent and not merely by their content. James says expressly: **“On Pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true” (Pragmatism, p. 299). **This is open to two objections. In the first place, what functions or “works satisfactorily” is not the existence of God, but belief in the existence of God. In the struggle with Agnosticism and religious scepticism the task of the Christian apologist is not to prove that men believe in God but to justify that belief by proving that God exists; and in this task the assistance which he receives from the Pragmatist is of doubtful value. In the second place, it will be remembered that the Pragmatist makes experience synonymous with reality. The consequences, therefore, which follow from the “hypothesis of God” must fall within actual or possible human experience, not of the inferential or deductive kind, but experience direct and intuitional. But it is clear that if we attach any definite meaning at all to the idea of God, we must mean a Being whose existence is not capable of direct intuitional experience, except in the supernatural order, an order which, it need hardly be said, the Pragmatist does not admit. We do not need the Pragmatist to tell us that belief in God functions for good, that it brings order into our intellectual chaos, that it sustains us by confidence in the rationality of things here, and buoys us up with hope when we look towards the things that are beyond. What we need is assistance in the task of showing that that belief is founded on inferential evidence, and that the “hypothesis of God” may be proved to be a fact.

 

[richardwy]

I googled William James and read a bit of his philosophy which I found rather interesting. It seems that according to him, you believe something is true without facts and if this hypothesis “works” for you then you may assume it to be true.

He happend to get theism right when speaking of Hinduism and Buddhism.

That was all.

I do know well many many folk who follow “well if it works for you keep at it” when it comes to religion.

I’m not one of them.

I’m a very happy orthodox Roman Catholic

web.mac.com/dominusvobiscum/iWeb/Site/Jesus.html

 

[notself]

He happend to get theism right when speaking of Hinduism and Buddhism.

That was all.

I do know well many many folk who follow “well if it works for you keep at it” when it comes to religion.

I’m not one of them.

I’m a very happy orthodox Roman Catholic

web.mac.com/dominusvobiscum/iWeb/Site/Jesus.html

You keep saying that, but you never give a direct quote with a reference. Where does James define theism?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi continues presenting evidences that Jesus came to India from Buddhist/Tibetan historic resources:
alislam.org/library/books…dia/index.html

Evidence from books on Buddhism

I now mention the books/characters/references used in this thread by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Promised Messiah 1835-1908, updated later.
This may also be termed as Bibliography
of the essay in the thread:
(Continued from the previous post)

Dr. Hermann Oldenberg. Buddha; His Life, His Doctrine, His Order. Translated from the German by William Hoey, M.A., D. Lit. (Williams & Norgate, 1882).

Page 142. On the occasion of a prophecy of Buddha’s regarding Metteyya, the next Buddha, who will in the far future appear upon the earth, it is said:
He will be the leader of a band of disciples numbering hundreds of thousands, as I am now the leader of bands of disciples, numbering hundreds. Cakkana Hisuttanta.

Page 149. Regarding the wife and child of Buddha the chief passage is ‘Mahauagga’, i 54; Rahula is frequently mentioned in the Sutta texts as Buddha’s son, without any prominent role being ascribed to him among the circles of disciples by the ancient tradition.

Page 103. Rahula is the name of Buddha’s son. He (Buddha) says Rahula is born to me, a fetter has been forged for me.
At footnote page 103. In the name Rahula there seems to be an allusion to Raha, the Sun and Moon subduing (darkening) the demon.

Francois Bernier Travels in the Moghul Empire. (Constable, London, 1891).
There are however many marks of Judaism to be found in this country. On entering the Kingdom after crossing the Peer-Punchal mountains, the inhabitants in the frontier villages struck me as resembling Jews. Their countenances and manners, and that indescribable peculiarity which enables a traveller to distinguish the inhabitants of different nations, all seemed to belong to that ancient people. You are not to ascribe what I say to mere fancy, the Jewish appearance of these villagers having been remarked by our Father, the Jesuit, and some other Europeans long before I visited Kashmir. (Page 930-932).

George Forster, Letters on a journey from Bengal to England. (Faulder, London, 1808).
On first seeing the Kashmirians in their own country I imagined from their garb, the cast of their countenance which was long and of a grave aspect, and the forms of their beard, that I had come among a nation of Jews. (Vol. II, page 20).

H. W. Bellews, C.S.I., Races of Afghanistan. (Thacker Spink & Co, 1884).
The traditions of the people (Afghans) refer them to Syria as the country of their residence at the time they were carried away into captivity by Bukhtanasar (Nebuchadnezzar) and planted as colonists in different parts of Persia and Media. From these positions they emigrated eastward at some subsequent period into the mountainous country of Ghor, where they were called by the neighbouring peoples ‘Bani Afghan’ or ‘Bani Israel’ i.e. children of Afghan and children of Israel.

In corroboration of this we have the testimony of the prophet Edras to the effect that the ten tribes of Israel who were carried into captivity, subsequently escaped and found refuge in the country of Arsareth, which is supposed to be identical with the Hazara country of the present day and of which Ghor forms a part. It is also stated in the Tabcati Nasiri that in the time of the native Shan Sabi dynasty there was a people called Bani Israel in that country and that some of them were extensively engaged in trade with the countries around.

Balfour, Edward, Surgeon General, The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Third Edition. (Bernard Quaritch, 1885).

Under heading ‘Afghanistan’, page 31. Pakhtun is the national appellation of the Afghans proper; but Afghans and Pathans also designate themselves Bani-Israel. Pakhtun is the individual and Pukhtuna the collective name of the Afghans. This word is described as of Hebrew (Ibrani) origin, though some of them say it has a Syrian (Suriani) source and signifies delivered and set free.

The term of Afghan is also said to have the same signification. One tradition is that the mother of Afghan or Afghana on his being born exclaimed ‘Afghan’, I am free and gave him this name; another tradition is that in the pangs of labour she exclaimed Afghan, Afghan, or Fighan, Fighan, words which in Persian mean, woe, grief, alas! Afghan is claimed as the designation only of the descendants of Kais.

Unquote

Thanks

 

[thecoach]

Well, that’s what I saw. I haven’t seen a buddists worshiping God.

where exactly did you “see” this?

 

[Contarini]

I googled William James and read a bit of his philosophy which I found rather interesting. It seems that according to him, you believe something is true without facts and if this hypothesis “works” for you then you may assume it to be true.

By this definition, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (May we be touched by His Noodly Appendage) is as true as the Christian God.

No, that’s not a fair summary of what James thought. He specifically says that you choose among “live options”–i.e., there are certain things that are intrinsically unbelievable for a given person (for me, and I suspect for everyone, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would fit into this category). It’s not that you arbitrarily choose to believe things that you have no reason to think are true, but that in a lot of cases there is simply no way to prove that one view is true and another is false.

Admittedly I’m basing this primarily on “The Will to Believe.” James’ pragmatism may have gone beyond this in other works, but I find what he says in “Will” to be sound and in principle compatible with orthodox Christianity (at least for me–I’m not sure orthodox Christianity of any form was a live option for James; he certainly indicates that Catholicism wasn’t).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with “beliefs.”

Yes, it does.

Do you really think God gives a rip about our vain imaginations in the contemporay sense

Irrelevant. Whether someone is an atheist or not is not a statement about God’s attitude to them but about their attitude to God.

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

How can you “begin with God” if you are talking about human beliefs? It makes no sense.

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.

Again, irrelevant. The point is that you cannot be said to disbelieve in Ed’s existence, and that is what “atheism” normally means. You are trying to widen the definition of the word for polemical purposes, and that’s a misuse of the English language.

Since God is not a member of a species, and since we cannot say “what” God is, I disagree with your analogy. But that’s another debate: whether the Hindu “God” is purely equivocal wth regard to the Christian God. Even if you are right on this point, that does not make Hindus atheists, just idolaters. “Atheism” has a common meaning in our culture, and it is in the interests of clarity as well as charity not to mess with that meaning.

If its not-God, then that’s a-theistic.

But in normal speech this is not what “atheism” means. It means someone who denies the existence of a Supreme Being, not someone who has wrong ides about the Supreme Being.

On the basis of Thomism, I would actually argue that if you believe in a being who is ultimate, you believe in God in a sense analogous to the Christian sense of the word, and so it is not true to say that what you believe in is “not-God.” However, it is not necessary to argue that point here–what matters is that linguistically atheism does not normally mean in modern English “belief in an ultimate being who is not God” (if such a statement were not a contradiction in terms, which I believe it is), but “denial of any ultimate being whatsoever.”

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

How can one better spend one’s time than in trying to understand the universe?

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

Then don’t try to redefine language in the interests of your hardline religious agenda.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, that’s not a fair summary of what James thought. He specifically says that you choose among “live options”–i.e., there are certain things that are intrinsically unbelievable for a given person (for me, and I suspect for everyone, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would fit into this category). It’s not that you arbitrarily choose to believe things that you have no reason to think are true, but that in a lot of cases there is simply no way to prove that one view is true and another is false.

The Trinity is intrinsically unbelievable to many people out there (especially muslims & jews). What do you think is a fair summary of what James thought. Because by what I read, I agree with what notself’s summary.

 

[Contarini]

The Trinity is intrinsically unbelievable to many people out there (especially muslims & jews).

Exactly–for them it’s not a live option. For some of them it becomes a live option, obviously. The point is that “the will to believe” only becomes relevant what you have decided what things are potentially believable. For me, for instance, fundamentalist Christianity is not a live option, nor is Islam.

What do you think is a fair summary of what James thought.

I just gave it.

Because by what I read, I agree with what notself’s summary.

Have you read The Will to Believe all the way through? Because until I did, I basically held this interpretation of James as well.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

Have you read The Will to Believe all the way through? Because until I did, I basically held this interpretation of James as well.

No, thats why i wanted to see your summary. Say can you make a thread about this?

Exactly–for them it’s not a live option. For some of them it becomes a live option, obviously. The point is that “the will to believe” only becomes relevant what you have decided what things are potentially believable. For me, for instance, fundamentalist Christianity is not a live option, nor is Islam.

i still dont understand, like what is “live option”? can you make a thread?

 

[notself]

I don’t see the difference between the phrase “live option” and the phrase “works for you”.

You stated that Islam was not a live option for you. I would say that Islam does not work for me. There is no difference between the two phrases.

Theism, especially the Abrahamic religions, do not work for me. They are not a live option for me.

Perhaps you can further explain the difference between the two statements. I can see none.

 

[Marc1152]

Buddhists don’t think Buddha is divine, just a very ‘enlightened’ human, so in that sense no they don’t worship him.

Not necessarily so. There are many different kinds of Buddhism, just like there are many different kinds of Christianity

Some forms of Buddhism have taken on many aspects of “self help” groups, some other forms are rather occult. But some Buddhist sects are actually quite sober spiritually.

The self help and Gnostic forms don’t like it, but there is a Divine Supreme Being in Buddhism. The Buddha was not really illumined under the Bodhi Tree here on Earth but rather has an Eternal Life, is omniscient and omnipresent…But that doesn’t sell too well in the West so they don’t mention it often.

“The Buddha was asked: Is there a God?”

He didn’t answer

“Then he was asked: is there no God?”

He remained quite

 

[notself]

When the Buddha declined to answer a question it was for one of two reasons. The question was poorly stated because the questioner had not thought it through. The question was not worth answering because it did not lead to progress on the path.

This is what the Buddha said about believing in a God in one of the oldest suttas.

From the Tittha Sutta AN 3.61

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… “Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past?”’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’
Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief… unchaste… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.’
When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.

Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… “Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by a supreme being’s act of creation?”’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’

Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being’s act of creation. A person is a thief… unchaste… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being’s act of creation.’

When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.

I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[Marc1152]

I hope this clears things up for you.<<

thanks.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Lotus Sutra is the central teaching for several sects and has a place of importance in others.

In the 16th Chapter of that Sutra the Buddha discards the earlier Sutra’s including the one you quoted. He then goes on to reveal his eternal life in order to bring beings into the final Truth.

The Buddha revealed there that the Buddha ( The Eternal Buddha Lord Shakyamnui)is not a temporal being but rather has an Eternal Life, is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He declares that he only appears to pass away as an expedient means of teaching.

As I said before, there are many different kinds of Buddhism. In some of them there is without doubt a Supreme Being… Your own mileage may vary.

I hope this clears things up for you too.

 

[notself]

Yes it does, thank you.

I was a moderator on a very large Buddhist forum with predominately Mahayana and Vajrayana members. Although some posters do hold this interpretation of the Lotus Sutra, none of the Mahayana monastics who are members of that forum seem to. But as you indicated, Buddhism is a very large tent and there are 84,000 ways to the path.

Metta
notself

 

[Marc1152]

Yes it does, thank you.

I was a moderator on a very large Buddhist forum with predominately Mahayana and Vajrayana members. Although some posters do hold this interpretation of the Lotus Sutra, none of the Mahayana monastics who are members of that forum seem to. But as you indicated, Buddhism is a very large tent and there are 84,000 ways to the path.

Metta
notself

I hold a Buddhist Ordination. In my opinion Buddhism has been taken over by a form of Gnosticism ( “Everyone is already a Buddha inherently and need only realize it through practice”). I feel this is a corruption that the sages of old would not recognize. Buddhism as understood via the Lotus Sutra is at the end of the day enlightenment through grace, not self effort. The Pure Land Sutra’s are also like this in many ways.

The older interpretation is fast disappearing as you mentioned . It is a big no sale in these modern times when many people are running away from any sort of authority much less a supreme being.

After 30 plus years of Buddhist practice I converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity which I feel more at home with.

 

[notself]

I am glad that you have found your home. Your journey must have been an interesting one.

I know very little about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is it the same age as the Roman Catholic Church? Or, is one an offshoot of the other?

 

[Marc1152]

I am glad that you have found your home. Your journey must have been an interesting one.

I know very little about the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is it the same age as the Roman Catholic Church? Or, is one an offshoot of the other?

The Ancient Church was founded with several Jurisdictions. The Church in Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandra. Later places like Constantinople and even later Moscow etc. were added…

The Church split in 1054 into East and West. The Roman Church split with the other See’s and identified itself as the Roman Catholic Church and the others called themselves The Orthodox. Both are Catholic ( Universally present) and both claim to be Orthodox.

I prefer the Orthodox because they have maintained the mystical Tradition of the Church and I believe it is the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” both by it’s historic credentials and by the Faith it keeps. It is the natural choice for those of us coming from Buddhism or other Eastern backgrounds

There is a forum here on Catholic Answers concerned with Eastern Christianity.

 

[notself]

I understand your preference for the ancient tradition. That is why I chose Theravada over the later traditions of Buddhism.

Does the Orthodox Tradition recongnize the Supreme authority of the Pope?

Are Orthodox allowed priests to marry?

Are there celibate monastics?