Are Buddhists Atheist

[banchang]

Well are they ?

[kayo]

why don´t you ask one?

[Guest endure]

No, they're Buddhists..

[thaiintokyo]

Well are they ?

yes, according to what i learned from a senior monk, when i was a monk for a short period of time out side of bangkok.

Siddhārtha taught only "suffering and the end of suffering" (during one alive)

he did not teach about life after death, heaven & hel_l (after death), god, angel, reborn, supernaturalness... on n on.

one of the way to end the sffering that Siddhārtha taught was to be more thoughtful, more realizing the true nature of reality.

it quite difference from any other religion which most of them focusing on spiritual cultivation, life after death and god.

then i think, their is not that many real Buddhists leftover nowaday.

[thaibebop]

Buddha suggested that people pay attention to their actions at the moment and not to concern themselves with the afterlife. He did not say that there was no after life, which is what Atheistism is, no God, no after life.

Buddhism, being born of Hindu ideas, still acknowledged the after life. After all the whole point was to obtain enlightenment and thus break the cycle of reincarnation, and achieve Nirvana. The after life and other lives one will most likely live was very important, but a person would never achieve enlightenment if they were always focusing on tomorrow and what might happen and ignore what was happening and thus not being mindful of their thoughts and actions and thus ruining their chances of achieving enlightenment.

So, as Endure so aptly put it, they are Buddhists.

[chownah]

Are Buddhists atheist?

Fact is that some are atheists and some are not.

Are Buddhists honest?

Fact is that some are honest and some are not.

Are Buddhists drunk alot?

Fact is that some are drunk alot and some are not.

Are Buddhists sexy?

Fact is that some are sexy and some are not.

Are Buddhists.............you get the idea I hope

[Gohonzon]

Buddha Shakyamuni mentioned very little about a God or the existence of a soul ,etc.

But we can safely assume that any notion of a monotheistic-creator God is rejected in Buddhism. The continual cycles of birth and death are (or have been) repeated eternally, without a begining or end.

It would not be inaccurate to say that Buddhists were atheists if pushed. But not in the militant materialist sense . Buddhist work towards their salvation on their own efforts alone. And not in relying upon a superior force outside of themselves.

[h90]

Buddha Shakyamuni mentioned very little about a God or the existence of a soul ,etc.

But we can safely assume that any notion of a monotheistic-creator God is rejected in Buddhism. The continual cycles of birth and death are (or have been) repeated eternally, without a begining or end.

It would not be inaccurate to say that Buddhists were atheists if pushed. But not in the militant materialist sense . Buddhist work towards their salvation on their own efforts alone. And not in relying upon a superior force outside of themselves.

I think the term atheist comes from the monotheistic cultures in Europe. So it does not fit 100 % in this culture. I would also say they are atheists but I would not be really happy with that term.

[Gohonzon]

Buddha Shakyamuni mentioned very little about a God or the existence of a soul ,etc.

But we can safely assume that any notion of a monotheistic-creator God is rejected in Buddhism. The continual cycles of birth and death are (or have been) repeated eternally, without a begining or end.

It would not be inaccurate to say that Buddhists were atheists if pushed. But not in the militant materialist sense . Buddhist work towards their salvation on their own efforts alone. And not in relying upon a superior force outside of themselves.

I think the term atheist comes from the monotheistic cultures in Europe. So it does not fit 100 % in this culture. I would also say they are atheists but I would not be really happy with that term.

Well yes, the word 'atheist' derives from the Greek word 'atheo's ; to deny the gods, godless.

But Buddhism did evolve to some extent (the notion of karma for instance) from a monotheistic religion. Brahman, in India, is the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god. The historical Buddha practised Brahmaninistic austerities on his path to enlightenment

I don't know the early Sanskrit word for atheist, even if there was one? It would more than likely be attributed to a non-theistic sect that denied monotheism and atman (the soul). Possibly even Buddhism itself??

[Gohonzon]

Brahmaninistic - bad sttttutter there

Brahmanistic.

[Austhaied]

A true buddhist ( one who knows and follows dhamma ) knows "WHAT IS WHAT" , and is not bothered with trivial details such as afterlife and or a grand creator, these matters have no bearing on "THIS LIFE ,HERE AND NOW"..

[chownah]

A true buddhist ( one who knows and follows dhamma ) knows "WHAT IS WHAT" , and is not bothered with trivial details such as afterlife and or a grand creator, these matters have no bearing on "THIS LIFE ,HERE AND NOW"..

By your definition there aren't many Buddhists in the world. My interpretation is that by your definiton anyone who believes in rebirth and does anything to make merit is not really a Buddhist. The Pali Scriptures talk about merit I think....seems like somthing that is talked about in the Pali Scriptures would be acceptable behavior for a Buddhist. I think your definition for a "true buddhist" is too restrictive.....but I do understand what you are getting at...I think.

[Austhaied]

A true buddhist ( one who knows and follows dhamma ) knows "WHAT IS WHAT" , and is not bothered with trivial details such as afterlife and or a grand creator, these matters have no bearing on "THIS LIFE ,HERE AND NOW"..

By your definition there aren't many Buddhists in the world. My interpretation is that by your definiton anyone who believes in rebirth and does anything to make merit is not really a Buddhist. The Pali Scriptures talk about merit I think....seems like somthing that is talked about in the Pali Scriptures would be acceptable behavior for a Buddhist. I think your definition for a "true buddhist" is too restrictive.....but I do understand what you are getting at...I think.

I did say "not bothered with details" ,i never said they don't believe..Where did you form that "CONCEPT"..?? As we all (should) know, you dont have to be a "Buddhist" to practice dhamma, meditation, make merit, etc.. It's inside of all of us, waiting for the layers to be peeled away, some can peel away faster than others..Maha Sadhu chownah..

[Gohonzon]

A true buddhist ( one who knows and follows dhamma ) knows "WHAT IS WHAT" , and is not bothered with trivial details such as afterlife and or a grand creator, these matters have no bearing on "THIS LIFE ,HERE AND NOW"..

Whilst on the other hand, Buddha Shakyamuni himself was the consummate dialectician.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Gohonzon

[chownah]

A true buddhist ( one who knows and follows dhamma ) knows "WHAT IS WHAT" , and is not bothered with trivial details such as afterlife and or a grand creator, these matters have no bearing on "THIS LIFE ,HERE AND NOW"..

By your definition there aren't many Buddhists in the world. My interpretation is that by your definiton anyone who believes in rebirth and does anything to make merit is not really a Buddhist. The Pali Scriptures talk about merit I think....seems like somthing that is talked about in the Pali Scriptures would be acceptable behavior for a Buddhist. I think your definition for a "true buddhist" is too restrictive.....but I do understand what you are getting at...I think.

I did say "not bothered with details" ,i never said they don't believe..Where did you form that "CONCEPT"..?? As we all (should) know, you dont have to be a "Buddhist" to practice dhamma, meditation, make merit, etc.. It's inside of all of us, waiting for the layers to be peeled away, some can peel away faster than others..Maha Sadhu chownah..

Mosts Buddhists that I know (the people in the village where I live) are very concerned with the "details such as afterlife." For instance when someone dies part of the funerary rites is to make merit and dedicate it to the recently deceased....this is a firm belief and dedication to the belief in after life. I really think that your statement says that a "true buddhist" would not perform these rituals since they wouldn't be "bothered with trivial details". Is this not your meaning?

Chownah

[lannarebirth]

Well are they ?

Yes.

"No god, no Brahma can be called

The Maker of this Wheel of Life:

Just empty phenomena roll on

Dependent on conditions all."

____ Visuddhi Magga ____

[banchang]

Well are they ?

Yes.

"No god, no Brahma can be called

The Maker of this Wheel of Life:

Just empty phenomena roll on

Dependent on conditions all."

____ Visuddhi Magga ____

Thank you I think you hit the nail on the head with your reply. I think there is a lot of confusion with Buddism and the old shamanistic believe that is the base of many of the village rituals.

As there are no Gods or deities in Buddisum they must be athiest.

[Gohonzon]

Mosts Buddhists that I know (the people in the village where I live) are very concerned with the "details such as afterlife." For instance when someone dies part of the funerary rites is to make merit and dedicate it to the recently deceased....this is a firm belief and dedication to the belief in after life. I really think that your statement says that a "true buddhist" would not perform these rituals since they wouldn't be "bothered with trivial details". Is this not your meaning?

Chownah

Although I don't think it particularly helpful the way in which 'Austhaied' dogmatically asserts certain things without recourse to reason, dialogue or engagement. There is, however, a fundamental truth in saying that concerns about an after life are a distraction from Buddhist practice. In a sense we die and are reborn in every moment of our being. In fact it would not be inaccurate to state the we should live each moment as if it's our last to ensure the most condusive life state at our moment of death. Within each of our life moments lays not only another life state but also death. Inherrent within life is death , and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

I also really don't want to get into a discussion about what is 'true Buddhism' either. Again that can be inflamatory - which is never helpful -and give rise to the very thing that Buddhism is not. That is, one-dimensionality

But I do think it true to say that concerns about the after life, making merit and so forth, are more culturally specific than being close to Buddhism in essence. Unfortunately, many think that by offering gifts to those monks advancing in their practice will somehow increase their own merit. But this is far removed from recognising that each person, irrespective, has their own innate seed of enlightenment - or Buddhahood if you like. No guru, knowledge from reading, or gifts to a Buddha image, whatever, is efficacious to in helping us to greater realistion or enlightenment. At best it shows an aspiration towards dharma (reality, truth, moral law or righteousness). So should not be knocked too severely as being trivial, if at all. Compassion and Wisdom are two of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism. Shakyamuni himself used expedient means to preach according to his audience.

I don't think that praying for the dead is at all negative - for it helps us to realise our own mortality and takes the focus from ourselves to others, dead or otherwise. There are of couse other ways of generalising this 'metta'. My own practice ,which has it's origins in Chinese Mahayana originally, and later developed by a 12th Century Japanese monk (Nichiren Daishonin) has prayers - including for deceased relatives - as part of our twice daily practice. But I don't consider this to be making merit but certainly does no harm either.

Finally. Essentially Buddhism is concerned with the here and now in a sense ; the way that we interact with others and our environments wherein the inconspicuous benefits of our practice become conspicuous. That within the particular we can also find the universal should not be the overriding concern as Buddhists n a mundane level. Whereas also, a fascination with supra-mundane alone won't achieve anything. Although actually working towards that realisation (enlightenment of co-dependent origination, or Ichinen Sanzen in my own tradition?) can only be achieved through practice and study, and not merely by supposedly creating chok-dee. That's, at best, only a partial truth.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Gohonzon

[chatchy]

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world. Investigate this yourself and see if you agree.

And, the main question; why are you asking what others believe? Find your own path, with guidance of a good teacher you can find your path and learn to follow it. Of what concern is it to you what others do or do not do, believe or do not believe, practice or do not practice. If someone else believes in a god or not, of what matter is it to you and your beliefs?

[Gohonzon]

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world. Investigate this yourself and see if you agree.

And, the main question; why are you asking what others believe? Find your own path, with guidance of a good teacher you can find your path and learn to follow it. Of what concern is it to you what others do or do not do, believe or do not believe, practice or do not practice. If someone else believes in a god or not, of what matter is it to you and your beliefs?

It's true that the Buddha did exort his disciples to reject all traditional forms of authority when he told them that they should not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather he says "if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it." This of course is a famous quote.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world.

I personally am unfamiliar with this one. Could someone please direct me to where this quote originates.

[banchang]

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world. Investigate this yourself and see if you agree.

And, the main question; why are you asking what others believe? Find your own path, with guidance of a good teacher you can find your path and learn to follow it. Of what concern is it to you what others do or do not do, believe or do not believe, practice or do not practice. If someone else believes in a god or not, of what matter is it to you and your beliefs?

So is it not right to question and study so you can make an informed choice or path?

[chatchy]

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world. Investigate this yourself and see if you agree.

And, the main question; why are you asking what others believe? Find your own path, with guidance of a good teacher you can find your path and learn to follow it. Of what concern is it to you what others do or do not do, believe or do not believe, practice or do not practice. If someone else believes in a god or not, of what matter is it to you and your beliefs?

So is it not right to question and study so you can make an informed choice or path?

++++++++++++++++++++++

Your question is not at all addressing what I said.

Certainly question and study, but base your beliefs on what you find that applies and works for you. Whether someone else believes in a god or does not, has nothing to do with you. You seem to not understand what I wrote. Certainly question and study if you like, but the important thing is to practice. For YOU to practice not for you to observe or question someone else's practice or beliefs is what should concern you. If someone else believes in a god or not, that has nothing to do with whether you believe in a god. Monks generally do not eat food after noon, but if you see a monk violate this rule and eat something after noon, what does this have to do with you? Just the same, if someone else believes something or not, what does that have to do with your beliefs? If someone else is a Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. - what does this have to do with your beliefs?

[chatchy]

The Buddha said to investigate everything, even if the Buddha said something, you should investigate yourself and decide if it is right.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world. Investigate this yourself and see if you agree.

And, the main question; why are you asking what others believe? Find your own path, with guidance of a good teacher you can find your path and learn to follow it. Of what concern is it to you what others do or do not do, believe or do not believe, practice or do not practice. If someone else believes in a god or not, of what matter is it to you and your beliefs?

It's true that the Buddha did exort his disciples to reject all traditional forms of authority when he told them that they should not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather he says "if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it." This of course is a famous quote.

Buddha taught that after death, we could become again in one of 5 different realms, one of which could be considered as a god world.

I personally am unfamiliar with this one. Could someone please direct me to where this quote originates.

My mistake, there are six realms:

The cycle of rebirth is known as samsara and involves the idea that on death we can be born in one of six realms, depending on our deeds. These realms are often depicted in Tibetan paintings known as thangkas. The six realms are: the hells, the world of the hungry ghosts, the animal kingdom, the human world, the world of the jealous gods and the heavens.

[Gohonzon]

My mistake, there are six realms:

The cycle of rebirth is known as samsara and involves the idea that on death we can be born in one of six realms, depending on our deeds. These realms are often depicted in Tibetan paintings known as thangkas. The six realms are: the hells, the world of the hungry ghosts, the animal kingdom, the human world, the world of the jealous gods and the heavens.

I suspected that you may have been referring to one of the Mahayana Sutras there (although I'm still at a loss for knowing which one?) As we know, the Mahayana scriptures are full of rich imagery and symbolism. None less than the most beloved and profound of those - The Lotus Sutra (LS).

But often, like the LS, we need to not take the imagery too literally. Otherwise it looks like a fairy tale. It's a bit like saying that you will be reborn in a Pure Land. The Pure Land is not of course a literal place - a land of enlightened beings, but a condition of being that reflects back upon our environment ... and much further. But as I haven't actually read your quote in context, I can only base my opinion upon familiarity with other Mahayana Sutras.

These realms are often depicted in Tibetan paintings known as thangkas. The six realms are: the hells, the world of the hungry ghosts, the animal kingdom, the human world, the world of the jealous gods and the heavens. The cycle of rebirth is known as samsara and involves the idea that on death we can be born in one of six realms, depending on our deeds. These realms are often depicted in Tibetan paintings known as thangkas. The six realms are: the hells, the world of the hungry ghosts, the animal kingdom, the human world, the world of the jealous gods and the heavens.

Yes, the Tibetan tradition has produced some rich and powerful imagery. They also employ visualisation techniques in their meditations based upon the same sort of imagery. For instance Tara in various colours to depict the different qualities of those deities.

We in the Nichiren tradition view us a having Ten Worlds that are co-originating in the here and now.

But that's another subject perhaps.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Gohonzon

[GuestHouse]

The view given by the Dalai Lama (The Four Noble Truths) is that we all of us exist at our own level of enlightenment, we each have our own spirituality but what ever that is at anyone moment will change.

So it is possible to have god, but that god would change and eventually not be god.

That is, a Buddhist can believe in a god, or gods, but cannot profess as a Buddhist to the existance of an eternal god.

[chatchy]

My mistake, there are six realms:

The cycle of rebirth is known as samsara and involves the idea that on death we can be born in one of six realms, depending on our deeds. These realms are often depicted in Tibetan paintings known as thangkas. The six realms are: the hells, the world of the hungry ghosts, the animal kingdom, the human world, the world of the jealous gods and the heavens.

I suspected that you may have been referring to one of the Mahayana Sutras there (although I'm still at a loss for knowing which one?) As we know, the Mahayana scriptures are full of rich imagery and symbolism. None less than the most beloved and profound of those - The Lotus Sutra (LS).

But that's another subject perhaps.

No, I don't think so. Samsura is not limited to Mahayana. Instead of thinking of the realms as places, think of them as processes or paths. Samsura refers to the cycle of rebirths or becoming-agains. Think of each rebirth into a realm as a process not as a location or situation.

Perhaps the answer to the question posed is that the Buddha is not a person or god, Buddha is a title not an individual.

[jdinasia]

hmmm I am not a deist ... nor am I an atheist!

[camerata]

I think this all depends on what definition you use for "atheist." A common dictionary definition is "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." With respect to (a supreme) God, Buddhists are atheists. A common definition for "god" is "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship." So, with respect to gods, it seems that (Theravada) Buddhists are also atheist. The Pali Canon is full of stuff about deities in other realms, but as far as I know none of them require worship.

[Plus]

Thanks, Camerata, it appears that simply put, Buddhism is atheism.

[the swagman]

Well are they ?

In the true sense of the word 'yes'

An atheiest is a non believer in God.