Buddhism and atheism

And yet, whether we are the Dutch or the Chinese*, the yo-yo is still a disk on a string.

*Both the Dutch and the Chinese independently invented the yo-yo.

A
R
T

went to a very interesting presentation at last year's Science and Nonduality conference in San Rafael. The presenter was Tomas Sander who is a software engineer and philosopher. His presentation was called "Joyful Irony and Western Emptiness Teachings". It drew parallels between the Madhyamika teachings of Buddhism and recent developments in Western philosophy - particularly Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Richard Rorty. I am reading up on the source materials he refers to and will do a post on it sometime.

Salima, yes, we atheists have a morality that does not derive from the supernatural contrary to what some supernaturalists espouse. We atheists differ on how to arrive at it.. I call morality covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism.
Some list Buddhism itself as atheistic in not having that Creator God, the divas-godlings [ angel-like?]- as not involved in our affairs.. And others say otherwise.
It seems to me whatever its merits as a life stance- eupraxsophy*-, its transcendental temptation6 of karma and reincarnation make it supernaturalistic and, for me, untenable.
Gautama teaches self-reliance, and we hav^ no need for Him if my understandng is right.
This thread should consider the teachings to contrast them with those of the Abrhamic ones so as to further our knowledge of Buddhism. And also with Confucianism-.
Good will and blessings to all!
Paul Kurtz * his term for life stance - Weltanschauung
^ "The Transcendental Temptation"

jeeprs

You are not so alone. I am at the same point and just took the vows of refuge a few months ago. I am naturally lazy, so practicing has been a challenge, but I try.

As my teacher says, "What else is more important?"

If you took the vows, you accepted the teachings of Buddha. They themselves are a moral code and I accept it because to me at least, they are clearly truth.

You can call that belief or faith if you want, but it has nothing to do with supernatural beings. It is simply an acceptance that Buddha's path is the one I want to follow.

All this other argument or discussion is just "noise" and dances around the peace I find when I meditate and find a clear mind.

Jeeprs, I agree with virtually everything you have said in this thread.
Keep up your DAILY meditation: everything is else is secondary.

Dangerous to who? The person practicing the 'beliefs' or teachings or some promoting their own process and trying to raise money for their church?

I find my own Buddhist practices and beliefs quite comfortable and sound and am comfortable with them. One of my most difficult 'right thinking' processes is to avoid the anger I feel when I am told I am going to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my saviour. I find the thought that one thinks they have found the one and only way to salvation as quite arrogant and dangerous in itself. Do not the Islamist believe the same thing, that their way is the only way?

More wars have been started by Christians and Islamic extremists than by atheists or Buddhists.

Isn't following the Buddha's path the tried and true way to live exactly that way?

This is what I love about self-described Buddhists, they know The Way and any discussion around the correct path to spiritual fulfillment is just "noise."

Is there anything less in line with the teachings of the Buddha than a smug "Buddhist?"

Ha Ha

Nice turn around.

Nice try too.

You're right though. Smugness or arrogance is apparent in all of us.

Before the Christian God came along, there were many gods and supposedly no atheist, now there is supposedly one God and if you don't believe it.... you automatically ( by the will of the one true God ) ... be turned into a atheists

Finn, I can't help but respond in a more thoughtful way. Perhaps because your post had an element of truth and because it hurt so much. You are right, smugness is not a virtue and is not good for the smug one or the target. I don't mean to be smug. I welcome discussion around the correct path to spiritual fulfillment and obviously there are many possible ways to same. But, if I or anyone else finds their solution in the teaching of the Buddha or Jesus, or anyone else, does that necessarily preclude anyone elses teaching? I think that in a way, yes it does. In most of these teachings, at some point, one must make a decision to accept the teachings and exclude following any other teaching. This exists in the the Buddhist vows of refuge and in the decision to become a Christian. There is an element of faith in this decision. Not necessarily faith in a supreme being, but faith that the teachings will be successful. That they will lead to spiritual fulfillment. One has to make this decision to move past the point of investigation and one of becoming a follower, or practician. Obviously, one should make this decision carefully.

Does this decision make one intolerant? It shouldn't. Perhaps that is what I was showing, intolerance. I was being intolerant toward Christians, dismissing their message because I have chosen a different route. That makes me no different than the very message I am complaining about. So, your criticism was well taken. I get caught up in my human emotions as much as anyone else. Others proclamations of spiritual righteousness should not elicit such a response in me. I should be happy for them that they have found such satisfaction themselves.

You are right, smug is not part of the Buddha's teachings.

I think you can parse the situation intellectually (should you want to) by a rigorous study of ontology and its role in the foundation of materialism and religion and also in the distinction between religion and theology.