Thread: Why isn't Buddhism considered an "atheist religion"

Buddha taught to rely on yourself. He never wanted to be worshipped.

Is it more of a philosophy?

What are your thoughts?

Agree that the lack of a God figure suggests that Buddhism is not a religion as such .

Seems more a way of life to me .

my thoughts are this should be in issues

^
Happy christmas SBF

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The earliest Buddhism quickly incorporated local Gods and spirits into it's beliefs

As did Christianity. Several aspects of pagan beliefs were absorbed into the Christian doctrine, even concepts and renderings of angels were 'borrowed'. Difference being of course it behooves Christianity to 'forget' this now - evidence to the contrary being at odds with the notion of the 'one and true God'.

Philosophy

Originally Posted by Norton

Buddha's teachings focused on relieving the human condition. Hence his teachings didn't address god/s but rather how to attain release from suffering and attain perfection. Buddha himself was a theist as would be expected given his background and times. Hence he believed their were gods and likely believed in the most important of India's gods, Brahma the creator god.

Yes, Buddha emphasised the path to liberation as the focus, detailed cosmology was developed by later scholars. Also, the pantheon of gods and enlightened beings are not permanent, absolute, but subject to cycles of existence, hence illusionary as all existence.

So, yes, Buddhism lies within the field of atheism.
It's a philosophy and method of gaining knowledge, and contains teachings concerning conduct in everyday life to further the achievement of its goals.

I hear the belief is that the devas appear for the 'saa-thu' (sort of like 'amen') after chanting-type blessings and other merit-making rituals and actions - despite their god-like status, they and all other beings are also subject to suffering and karma.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The earliest Buddhism quickly incorporated local Gods and spirits into it's beliefs

As did Christianity. Several aspects of pagan beliefs were absorbed into the Christian doctrine, even concepts and renderings of angels were 'borrowed'. Difference being of course it behooves Christianity to 'forget' this now - evidence to the contrary being at odds with the notion of the 'one and true God'.

True, Christianity is in many respects closer to pagan systems of belief than to its Judaic origins.

Evidence suggests Jesus Christ was born in early autumn, though his birth was announced as the 7th January in an effort to obliterate the pagan feast of that date by gilding it with a Christian myth. Much later, in the 4th century after his death, the date was changed again, since an important Mithraic celebration, profoundly menacing to Holy Fathers, occurred on the 25th of December. It is the Roman Saturnalia that remains immaturely disguised in Christmas celebrations.

The pagan goddess Eostre survives in the Christian ritual of Easter, which is hardly relevant to the Crucifixion or the Resurrection since it was created and the date for its celebration established at Nicea in 325 CE, by majority view.

The pagan feast of St Juno falls on the 14th of February. The halo is pagan, practical, and completely un-Christian in origin, as is the most important Christian accessory, the Cross. In Carthage, the cross was ornamental; Scandinavians set crosses as boundary marks and over graves of their great men; Egyptians employed it as a sacred symbol, and two loaves bearing a cross were discovered at Herculaneum. Pre-Christian Aztecs worshipped the Cross, as did the people of Cuzomel. At Tabasco the Cross represented the rain god.

Even the Vatican unashamedly retains its pagan beginnings in its name, standing as it does on Vatican Hill, so named because it once was occupied by the Vaticanatores, the Latin term for soothsayers.

^ Some excellent examples of what I was referring to. Good work keda.

There's those and plenty more, exploring the roots of many Christian beliefs, doctrines and dogmas can be quite interesting in what (or even who, as the case may be) it leads to.

Originally Posted by chitown

Buddha taught to rely on yourself. He never wanted to be worshipped.

Is it more of a philosophy?

What are your thoughts?

Just a quick opinion on the title, Chi.

Some don't consider Buddhism a religion (which I think is good), and some don't consider the belief system to be inherently "atheist."


Gracias.

Looking at the major religions, only Buddhism does not rely on the absurdity of miracle to get its message across.

This is an unassailable positive that should propel the religion onto the moral summit, if its followers did not insist on dragging it through the swamp.

It's a religion (for most Buddhists).

Everyone here seems to equate Buddhism with the western humanist view of it which is a little limited. You could possibly say that Zen is more of a way of life.
There is a huge faith aspect to Buddhism, it's not all blind faith, a lot of it is developing faith empirically by trying Buddha's teachings out and deciding if they work or not. But the Buddha never rejected blind faith either. If it works for you and makes you happier then it's OK.

A lot of Mahayana Buddhists work on receiving blessings from Buddhas (Mahayanists believe anyone can become a Buddha therefore there are lots of Buddhas). The only thing Buddhism as a whole lacks is a creator other than that it ticks all the religious boxes.
Of course their are Buddhists and Buddhists and for some it is more akin to a way of life but these are the cherry pickers rather than the followers of what the Buddha taught.

'Faith', is by definition, central to any belief system.

Mahayana Buddhism is a later development, one could say the 'cherry-pickers' who take it as a philosophy without worshipping are closer to Buddha's original teachings, though one might rightly say that the mentioned Western humanists lack devotion to the path.

Originally Posted by stroller

'Faith', is by definition, central to any belief system.

Mahayana Buddhism is a later development, one could say the 'cherry-pickers' who take it as a philosophy without worshipping are closer to Buddha's original teachings, though one might rightly say that the mentioned Western humanists lack devotion to the path.

That's a very Theravadin way of looking at it Stroller and one that Mahayanists don't necessarily agree with. Mahayanists say that their teachings come from Buddha but were written down later.

Originally Posted by Frankenstein

As long as you recognize the four noble truths, follow the eightfold path and take refuge in the dhamma you are a Buddhist.

Definition of a Buddhist is someone who takes refuge in the three jewels of Buddhism. Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

The eightfold path is a hinayana teaching not emphasised by Mahayanists.

Does Buddism have a "creation myth"? Cultural anthropolgists consider this to be the key factor which all religions have in common.

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Does Buddism have a "creation myth"? Cultural anthropolgists consider this to be the key factor which all religions have in common.

The Lord Buddha certainly didn't express such a myth. He made it clear speculating about a creator was irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism. Suggest you not think about it too much as it will bring "vexation and madness."

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them.

Which four?

1. "The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

2. "The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

3. "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

4. "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

AN 4.77: Acintita Sutta

Originally Posted by mad_dog

secular belief system

Are you referring to separation of Religion and State regarding secular belief?

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by mad_dog

secular belief system

Are you referring to separation of Religion and State regarding secular belief?

No trying to think of my own term for Buddhism's unique nature..... It is a difficult concept to consider at 5am