[Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 15

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 12-3-2010 23:06, David Living schreef:
>    
>> Eric says:
>>      
>
>
>
> Atheism and buddhism always were good companions and there are many records of criticism of Buddhist monks against the Hindu idea of an 'Isvara' (sorry for the Amida fanclub, I think they 're not real Buddhists and should start their own religion).
>
> Since when was the Buddha an atheist? Didn't he talk to Brahma after he got enlightened? And didn't the Jeta Grove often get lit up by gods in the middle watch of the night with devas coming over to give the buddha a koan or two? - probably planning the introduction of his teachings to the Japanese. Surely you don't think this was all made up later by imaginative monks its all far too weird to be anything other than original teaching.
>    
That about Brahma is just gossip. Besides atheism nowadays means that 
you don't buy the propaganda about the comicbook monster called Jhvh 
that was invented 4000 years ago in the Sinai desert. The gods in India 
and Europe for that matter were more a kind of shady metaphores, who 
fucked cows, cheated each other and even went for a stroll on earth if 
they got bored. I know of no place in the canon where the Buddha urges 
his followers to believe in a god.
  Devas never gave the Buddha a koan, because the koan had yet to be 
invented in China more than a thousand years later.
And yes all you mention was made up, I'm not sure by who.
> Its the Theravadins who are Atheists - The Buddha was far too sensible to go to that extreme. Atheism leads to Nihilism and before you know it you're waging war on the Tamils.
>    
I think the Sri Lanka war was not about gods, but about power. Theists 
are nihilistic, because they believe the life is meaningless without a god.
> As for Karma - is it that difficult to see that actions have consequences - not just for other people but for yourself too? Karma is a mess in Buddhism as well as Hinduism but it need not be.
>    
That actions have effects we know, but that is called causality. Karma 
is about ethics, it is the believe in an ethical mechanism without human 
intervenance, a kind of cosmic bookkeeping of right and wrong actions.
> Rebirth is not something you can prove or disprove. I admit its silly to accept it just because some stupid people do but you just cannot categorically deny it... you might regret it later.
Why it's better to know the truth now.
> It may offend western tastes but what about the law in science that says energy never disappears it just changes?? I have energy therefore I don't disappear!
The adventures of energy around the process of dying has been perfectly 
mapped by science, no reincarnation is mentioned.
>   OK I can't base my life around that idea but it doesn't have to be a dogmatic belief. Conversely it is too too dogmatic to say that rebirth and karma cannot exist because they do not fit in with our western atheistic philosophy.
>    
Well, what would you suggest then? To assert their existence not because 
we believe in them but because others do? You're a lousy debater.

erik