[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Upeksacitta wrote:

> The meaning of a term is created by its use rather than its derivation, and
> the most widespread use of "atheism" is understood as definitely denying God's
> existence.

yes, that's true. It is the popular use.

> Of course one could stipulate a new use of "atheism", but why
> bother  when we have the term "agnostic" (perhaps "hard agnostic" to be more
> specific)  which describes the Buddha's fundamentally pragmatic approach much
> better?

It's true that Buddha sometimes used an agnostic approach to teach
others. However, Buddha was not an agnostic.
Maybe the cause it's a problem of some heritage from the western
philosophy, so today still there is an implicit need of the belief in
the abrahamic god to establish the existence of some Religion

One example of that, this essay of Bertrand Russell "What is an
Agnostic?" http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

He defines those terms in this way:

1- atheist is who know that there is not a God
2- agnostic is who suspend any judgement until further evidence

However, in Buddhism appears a god creator despite he is not the
basis of doctrine and practice. The teaching of Buddha sometimes
favours agnosticism, sometimes not. Although Buddha had frequent
conversations with that god and others.  So definitely he cannot
be called an agnostic when he appear in these conversations.


> I  would have thought that the most important practical reason for
> avoiding the  term "atheist" to describe Buddhism is also to avoid misleading
> dualistic  oppositions to theistic religion.

yes, I agree with that practical use while still most of people
maintains that notion of atheism. However, this heritage seems to be
quite ethnocentric. Today, the word 'nihilist' would be more proper
to designate any idea which deny a transcendence for the life.

Note in these times some people can have the belief in a
transcendence avoiding religions and gods. Just using scientific
ideas (biological, etc..). So the word 'atheist' to fit anyone who
deny a transcendence for the life it's sounds not right.
In common talk it's logical that use of atheism. However, note the
amount of scholar and official papers dragging problems and confusions
with that use. 


best regards,