Theist-based Religious Belief Systems: Facts and Fancies, Imagination and Reason

[Mars Man]

Having noticed that there had been a little bit of interest in matters dealing with, related to, or on, the several theist-based religious belief systems at large (on another thread in this sub-forum), and that it has seemingly been a pretty good long while since a really serious discussion/debate has been engaged here on the matter, I have decided to go ahead a start a new one. Of course, I do say new, because there have been some in the past which one does not find on the main page. Any who may be interested in participating in this thread is fully welcome, of course. I simply ask, please, that all follow the guidelines spelled out in this thread linked to here(1)

My intention is to present a somewhat larger than normal presentation, discussion, and/or debating arena with this thread. The reason for that is that I wish to put it all in a chronological, H. sapiens development order. Additionally, one large part of this will be that matter of investigation (somewhat done already on my part), and testing of the content of the several information sources. Additionally, the purpose for including the matter of facts along with this, is that we are pretty much required by nature at large to accept facts that are known to be so. We are likewise pretty much obligated to participate with reason, at a broad and general level--because nature at large simply supplies that process. (We cannot much escape the fact that reasoning is an a priori, necessary mental base.) For the above reasons, therefore, subject specifics will probably tend to shift, from time to time, and, long running connective discussions will possibly be found across wide spaces between posts which are connected. We will have to allow for that since our domain is so large.

I then, before really getting into any particular matter, wish to ask, please, that we make every effort to adhere to as accurate and as correct terminology as possible, and pay extra careful attention to sound, and hard data and knowledge. I strongly suggest that for the general emotional element of mental activity which the human being has had, and which can be, and is, applied to a broad range of activities, systems, and domains of human cultural aspects, we use the word 'religion.' For the systems which have been created that posit and publish a given god, or any number of gods and/or goddesses, I urge that we strictly use the word 'theist-based religious belief system.'

Unless otherwise required by common English grammatical usage, I would strongly suggest, and argue, that we use the lower-cased 'god' and 'goddess' unless we are specifically identifying (in the case of the form god) either the god of the Jewish theist-based religious belief system, the god of the later late Christian theist-based religious belief system (to date), or the god of the Islamic theist-based religious belief system. More than this, however, when referring to the deity of the Jewish system (Tanakh, or Old Testament (OT)) it is best to use the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), or the transliterated Yahweh--because that is the actual name of that god. When referring to the god of the Islamic system, it is best to use the transliteration of the Arabic, namely, Allah (or a form of it). The Christian god could be referred to using the terminology 'the trinity' (or 'The Trinity'), and all other gods and goddess should be referred to by their actual given names (proper nouns)--for example, Ra, Zeus, Dagon, El, Krishna, Amaterasu, and so on. If there are any questions or concerns on the above matters, they can become part of the thread's discussion and presentation as well. I am ready to fully explain the better value in clarity which is obtained by stricter adherence to them.

I guess that this would probably be a very slow thread, and even I, myself, will not be able to come around as much as I probably should, but, I will do my best to maintain a fairly regular posting and presenting frequency here. I will possibly start off--depending on any concerns, questions, or what-have-you, that may arise in the meantime--with presenting the more accurate and more correct items of knowledge on the development of the belief system matter among early hominins. That first post may be after a day, or two, though. Please do forgive me for that. I look forward to a possibly interesting and informative thread, and to sharing and learning with those seriously interested in doing it right--academically minded, logically minded, and politely minded.


1. Mycernius's point number three may be said to be a little lacking in some more useful detail, but we should primarily stick to that. I wish to assert that it would surely be seen to be reasonable to accept that using textual content is useful when being used to support argumentation which clearly does not amount to preaching, and which is not simply circularly being used to support any claim that it is factual in nature simply because of itself alone.

 

[Mike Cash]

And here I've been studying Buddhism of late, which leaves me out of it. Dang it.

 

[ewww]

For the systems which have been created that posit and publish a given god, or any number of gods and/or goddesses, I urge that we strictly use the word 'theist-based religious belief system.'

Hmmm ... does that statement mean that all belief systems were created by human species?
Sorry, but it is directly related to question of politenes. Do You think that religious human being will treat You as a polite martian after that kind of statement?

 

[Mars Man]

And here I've been studying Buddhism of late, which leaves me out of it. Dang it.

Well, Mike Cash (I'll go ahead and maintain consistency in usage of usernames for this thread) that might very well depend. As far as I know, we have ample room to understand soundly enough that Siddhartha Gautama had apporached his philosophy from the Yogic Vedanata tradition, which was a theist-based system for the most part. From that perspective, it is of course discussable here.(1)

Nevertheless, we can also fairly securly infer that his philosophical and doctrinal (so to speak) teachings had not been so much of any theist-based religious belief system tenet, or information source. If my memory serves me well enough, that might be the 'lesser wheel,' perhaps?
By the time Buddhism arrived in Japan, however, it had very much become 'Temple Buddhism' which fits the description--by way of the information source it publishes--as being theist-based. This does not need to mean 'theist-based' in exactly the same nuanced descriptive terms as that of other early and earlier systems, but as long as deity is involved in whatever way, to whatever degree, and as long as that matter plays a major role in the system, we can say that it fits this category. It would be considered a theist-based religious belief system.

Therefore one thing that surely would be interesting (I reason) to discuss and consider, is this very thinkable wave (so to speak) of coming from a theist-based system (Hinduism in general, basically) to a non-theist-based philosophy/teaching, back to a theist-based system (in part) again. If we were to take that in a three step inquiry, what information do you have on the earliest developments (to the best that it can be deduced from the extant textual recensions) of Siddhartha's moving out of his Bhrama-Vedic training?




1. While I had focused on the Abrhamic faiths in the OP, for ease, I had not intended to limit discussion and debate to those along--thus the 'theist-based religious belief system' emphasis. All such systems are fair game here.



---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------

Thank you for joining in, ewww, and voicing your opinion and thoughts. I have chosen not to quote your wording here, since it is so close, and a bit large. I trust that we will be able to follow along from memory and checking on this same page.

Firstly, please allow me to respond to, and expound on, the matter of being polite. I am quite certain that if we were to check out a number of good English dictionaries, we will find a good enough, standard definition of the term. I am also quite certain that we will not find that being polite requires that we withhold facts, subdue rationality and reasoning on sound and valid knowledge, nor that we are under obligation to deny freedom of expression of the conclusions best derived from this process. I am fully aware that there will most unfortunately be some who may not particularly care for such open truthfulness in the handling of sound and valid knowledge, nor in a more balanced, international sense of political correctness (meaning a lesser degree of application of how some may take tend to apply it), yet argue that realistic, pragmatic, and 'toolable' knowledge has well proven itself to be more beneficial for the whole of human and non-human life circumstances.

Nextly, the matter of theist-based religious belief systems. I will take it--if I may (and otherwise please do correct me)--that you have understood the definition/description of the terminology. What we will have to do, therefore, in order to detemine the truth value inherent in the statement, namely, " For the systems which have been created that posit and publish a given god, or any number of gods and/or goddesses, I urge that we strictly use the word 'theist-based religious belief system," is to search for evidence that securely enough allows us to deduce that a particular theist-based religious belief system had been in place before H.sapiens development of socio-linguistic record. To challenge the statement' inclusiveness of all systems, such as to insinuate that any number from among the total of the several systems had not been created by human beings, will absolutely need sound and valid evidence and sound and valid argumentation to support. While we will not want to persist in any a priori bias so as to preclude anything (in other words, we do not want to automatically disallow evidence and argument to be presented before conclusions reached) , we will want to make every effort to support what we say, what we conclude, and how and what we reason on.

Finally, the matter of being 'religious' was essentially spelled out in the OP. However, please do allow me to expand, or amplify, that a bit. Since we are holding 'religion' to be the emotional tagging that is so especially human (although it is evident that Cro Magnon and H. neaderthalensis (at least) had also been), it follows that to be 'religious' is to be of the quality or state of being a participant in, to, or towards this emotional condition. This in and of itself has nothing to do with theist-based religious belief systems. I am a religious person, there is no doubt at all (although you can only trust me here, because you have never met me, nor know me), but simply do not adhere to, or maintain any life-style activity as per, or according to, any theist-based religious belief system.

I ask, therefore, why it might be that you have objected as you have, ewww? Being polite has not been breeched, being 'religious' represents no problem or dillemma, and any matter of concern in opposition to the understanding that the creation of any theist-based religious belief system is human in origin, will have to be considered based on sound and valid knowledge and reasoning.

 

[ewww]

Dear Mars Man,

thank You very much for kind explanation. I am so sorry for my previous post, may be it is little aside of the line of that topic, but I have some concern.

I did understamd proposed terminology, I think so, but ... I am not native english speaking person, so my understanding could be incomplete or even wrong.

I do not like to discuss here what is politenes, and how it defined in engilsh dictionaries, my understanding of politenes is very naive, and simple - that is something what does not offend opponents .

BTW, Your initial post pretends to be academic, and objective, and You are trying stay far from emotions (it is only my opinion), however, the way You did introduce terminology makes me think that Your knowledge and understanding of 'theist-based religious belief systems' is very incomplete. For example, You are proposing to reffer to jewish g-d as Yahweh, it is ok unless You are not a jewish person. Or ... using trinity as a name of christian god, but in the sense of what confession? Or ... ok, I'll stop on these two. The point is, Your reasoning looks like attempt to fit everything into procrustean bed of some ideal model. But we know, that any ideal model is good only withing some particular boundaries, and it does not work beyond that domain. So the main point is : Your initial post does not contain definition of boundaries whithin Your model could be considered as valid, and, therefore, could be disputable.

and any matter of concern in opposition to the understanding that the creation of any theist-based religious belief system is human in origin, will have to be considered based on sound and valid knowledge and reasoning.

Probably, that is what You should tell in Your first post, it make sense of all terminology You introduced.

And now about concern I wrote before in that post: You may name some particular religion as a 'theist-based religious belief system' created by human, but ... You will understand that is not a true once You will try to look from he other side; for example, judaism, it is just a business-like contract between some unity of people and g-d; as any contract it has terms and defaults, there are nothing irrational - everything is very pragmatical, and that contract originated from g-d, humans did not participate in it's creation. Just tell me, how could You name that business model as a 'theist-based religious belief system'?

Mars Man, I do beleive that You are religious man, and I do respect Your beleifs. I am atheist, but 20 years of living in states put some milestones on my mind

ewww

 

[Mike Cash]

I believe the term you are looking for is "covenant" rather than "contract". The entering into of a contract can be refused by either party; neither party can be forced into a contract, else it is void.

MM,

I'm limited by what I can reasonably type up on this blasted phone keyboard, plus since you brought up the topic I thought considering the timing it might be just as well to save some for discussing over scotch and darts at the JREF Meet in the beautiful bucolic splendor of rural Nagano.

 

[Mars Man]

That sounds just great, Mike Cash; let's do do that!

I appreciate your getting back to the thread, ewww. I of course accept your apology, yet admit that I am at a bit of a loss, as to which step to take next. I can see that there is going to be misunderstanding due to level of English exchange; you have greatly misunderstood some things which I had made clear enough. For example, to be 'religous' in a sense of usage which better clarifies, is nothing more than to have deep emotional appreciation for something. The awe and inspiration, beauty and greatness I sense and emotional feel when I look into the matter of brain function, is a matter of being 'religious' in this sense.

Perhaps--and only if you are interested--I can break some things down into some very, very small bits, and we can look over, and discuss them. Do you understand what is involved in a 'belief system?'

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I am basically what we might word as 'a non-theist agnostic secular humanist.'

 

[ewww]

I believe the term you are looking for is "covenant" rather than "contract". The entering into of a contract can be refused by either party; neither party can be forced into a contract, else it is void.

MC, "contract" is very appropriate rerm here, and You are right, that contract could be a subject of refusal by both sides, and parties can not be forsed , etc, etc... You know, judaism introduces afterlife but there is no judgement day, so, following contract terms, violating or voiding it will not have any consequences for Your soul(some orthodox could object here). By entering to contract You do not suppose to beleive g-d, You should only follow the terms of contract, and ... it is matter of conscience how You are following.

MM, I see here quite misunderstanding from both sides, and my english is a major part of the problem. I see that another problem is a difference in education and culture. I was born and I did get my education somewhere in 70-es in totalitaristic communistic society, despite of my near classical philosophycal education, I have alot of odds and cruelties behind. Thank You very much for letting me extended explanation of Your point of view, I very appreciate that. I am so sorry, but not now.

 

[Mycernius]

Just a point ewww. You state you are an atheist. Then why are you missing the o out of god when using it as a common noun? I have found that the people that have a tendency to do this come either from a Jewish background or are evangelical christians. This is the first time I have ever seen another atheist do it.

 

[ewww]

Jewish people should not reffer to g-d as "g-d" or by name. I do the same when I an speaking about judaism, that is some kind of respect to religious beleifs. You can be atheist, but that could not be a reason for dispespect to any kind of religious belief or any human as belief carrier.

And yes, I am atheist, but it is completely my internal business. I did state that to beware that my appearance in that discussion could be little different from expected.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for your response and further information, ewww. I will await for a response to my earlier asked question in my post #7 above ("Do you understand what is involved in a 'belief system?'") If you do wish to consider and discuss the matter, whenever you have the time to get back, is O.K.--I don't want to push you. Again, regardless of the general environment (country and political system at large), or immediate environment (home life, friends, family, and/or relatives) one has grown up in, we are all bound to the planet Earth pretty much. Also, regardless of genetical material involved in our individual making, we are all H.sapiens by mere definition and organism category. Therefore, and in the very same way of thinking, we are all faced with being bound by facts, 'as-good-as-fact' understandings, more and/or most accurate and more and/or most correct understandings and conclusions. These are things that are natural, and that we should all make every attempt to learn and gain further knowledge in; therefore, denying or refusing the presentation of facts simply due to misinformation and misguided emotional disposition, is a wrong to human society at large.

I wish to point out one small fact here, in the spririt of sharing, and furthering more accurate and correct knowledge. My inention is honest, and my background is sufficient for the matter (as many on this forum can attest to).

In the English language, traditionally and by more accurate and standard usage, we do not have any word 'g-d.' We can check, for example, the Oxford English Dictionary, volumes IV, V, and XI, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p 973, Webster's New World college Dictionary 4th Ed., p 608, and others such as Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, and The Random House English Dictionary, etc., and we will never once see 'g-d.' The fact is that this is not a word, but a lower level, non-linguistic-based symbol. Since it is not a word (and of course, how in the world would one go about pronouncing that in oral conversation), we should not use it in linguistic settings as though it were.

The fact that during the later decades of the Second Temple Period of Judasim, the superstition that the actual name of that the Jewish system's information source (scrolls of the Jewish system at large; esp. Tanakh) should not be spoken orally, slowly gained ground. We of course find the name in written format all over the place, even in the Isaiah scroll of the Qumran finds which had been penned in Greek, but had kept an older form of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). If we look at Deuteronomy 3:24 in the production in English of the Torah by the Jewish Society of the USA, we find, "`O Lord GOD, Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness, and Thy strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Thy works, and according to Thy mighty acts? ." (LORD=YHWH in the Hebrew [ יהוה ])

And, knowing of basically Jewish writers who write in, for example, the Journal of Biblical Literature, I can fully attest that when writing in English, we can use the word god in one of two forms--either as it is, the common noun, or in a capitalized form as primarily a proper noun. (The proper noun, as is more accurate and correct, and standard in English, refers to either YHWH (for the most part, actually) or, the biblical god of the later late Christian movement (which has come down to us today). The above are facts which we should have no qualms about mentioning and making clear to those who have not had the opportunity to learn of them yet.

And to all and any who may be reading and following, I will explain some detail of the above later on.

 

[haibuihoang]

Hmm it's a very very long post. But I believe "theist-based religion" mean the one that have a kind of God or Gods, who created the world and people. In this definition, the pure Buddhism is not. To me, the core of Buddhism is rather a philosophy of living rather than religion.

 

[Mike Cash]

Hmm it's a very very long post. But I believe "theist-based religion" mean the one that have a kind of God or Gods, who created the world and people. In this definition, the pure Buddhism is not. To me, the core of Buddhism is rather a philosophy of living rather than religion.

The problem is that there is such a huge difference in what Buddhism was when it started and what it turned into as it spread geographically and as the centuries passed. Yet to the extent that they all retain the Four Noble Truths (and consequently the Eight-fold Path) then they are all Buddhism. There was nothing in the founding teachings of Buddhism which posited a God....in fact, one may be an Atheist and still be a perfectly good Buddhist....but on the other hand there is nothing in the founding teachings of Buddhism which prohibits the belief in a deity....hence one may be, for example, a Christian and still be a perfectly good Buddhist (although the opposite is not true, of course). The end goal is release from samsara (六道輪廻) (the cycle of rebirth) through the attainment of perfect enlightenment and ridding one's self of the clinging attachments which are held to be the cause of restarting the cycle, and it is held that there are many paths to the goal. So whether one does it through approaching Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy is merely the path and really doesn't matter, so long as the same end goal is reached. Even another religion could serve as the path.

Since Buddhism doesn't ascribe the creation of the universe, the earth, man, or anything to any sort of god whatsoever and its practice (at least in the earliest teachings) neither provides nor prohibits deities and in fact they are welcome (whether through genuine worship/reverence or merely as useful allegorical constructs), Buddhism has proven itself remarkably adept at "adopting" deities from other faiths. The Lotus Sutra, one of the most important of the Mahayana (Greater Vehicle) sutras, is absolutely overflowing with references to adopted deities such as Bonten (Brahmin) and Taishakuten (Indra), and some manifestations of Vishnu and even gives some attributes to the historical Buddha (Sakyamuni) and the boddhisatva, which historically was just one of the paths of following Buddhism, which can only be described as godlike supernatural powers.

In short, Buddhism leaves you free to believe in as many gods as you want....or none at all. That has to make it pretty unique among the world's many religions.

Another thing which makes it very unique is its rather interesting dichotomy (at least according to my notions of it):

For Christians, the dichotomy is: You're a Christian or you're a heathen.

For Jews, the dichotomy is: You're a Jew or you're a Gentile.

For Muslims, the dichotomy is: You're a Muslim or you're an infidel.

But since Buddhism posits the existence of 仏性 (仏種) "Buddha spirit"....the potential to attain enlightenment....in all sentient creatures then the dichotomy is: You're a Buddhist or you're a Buddhist and just don't know it.

 

[haibuihoang]

Your explanation is very comprehensive and I agree with you. That's the way in Vietnam, Buddhism, Taoism and traditional beliefs mixed together so well. The way other religions like Christians or Islam couldn't do. But I feel that Buddhism today in Vietnam is not "pure" any more while there are many theist beliefs.

 

[Mars Man]

Thank you for joining in, haibuihoang. I wish to comment on this before getting back with Mike Cash.

Hmm it's a very very long post. But I believe "theist-based religion" mean the one that have a kind of God or Gods, who created the world and people. In this definition, the pure Buddhism is not. To me, the core of Buddhism is rather a philosophy of living rather than religion.

Yes, you have caught the essence of the descriptive term; a 'theist-based religious belief system' is a somewhat organized system of belief which had operated, or does operate, through the religious aspects derived from human emotional build, and linguistic abilities, and which posits a god, or goddess, or any number of them as kingpins of the system (and at times reasons for the entire system itself). I wish to encourage usage of the form god unless specifically referring to either YHWH, or the Christian biblical god model.

Now, regarding the matter of the earliest teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, as Mike has pointed out, and I had lightly touched on above, and as you have correctly mentioned, we shouldn't really see as a theist-based religious belief system, per se. There are some problems, I still contend, that we might want to investigate a little further; for example the direct borrowing from Hinduism of reincarnation. As time allows, and as Mike Cash (and others) join in, we can do that.

As it stands at the moment, however, I place practicing Buddhism within the category of a theist-based religious belief system. That may, or may not be the more correct placement, but I argue that careful analysis and inquiry will likely clear up that concern.

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Now I do appreciate your work there--taking that to have been typed out on your phone! Also, good to see you posting and expounding on that. As I have mentioned in the post above, I would like to explore some things as we go, and see to what extent we can draw the cut-off line between Hinduism and the best discerned early Buddhist thought.

In short, Buddhism leaves you free to believe in as many gods as you want....or none at all. That has to make it pretty unique among the world's many religions.

This is one point that I will thus spend a little time looking into--but in no overly rushed manner; a bit too busy. Can we find any examples of theist-based systems (thus holding certain gods or goddesses) which, if believed in, might create a contradiction with or tend to deny the validity of any point, in some thinkable manner, within the Four Noble Truths, or the Eight-Fold path?

But since Buddhism posits the existence of 窶｢ﾂｧﾂ青ｫ (窶｢ﾂｧﾅｽﾃｭ) "Buddha spirit"....the potential to attain enlightenment....in all sentient creatures then the dichotomy is: You're a Buddhist or you're a Buddhist and just don't know it.

Yes, I have come across this very interesting appeal. In that Buddhism has become what is most largely is in much of the world today, I feel uncomfortable using that word there. But surely, as the philosophical essence of the best understood early propositions go, it would be so. I could be thought of as being akin to saying that one may be a physicalist and not know it, but holding to a philosophical position which for the far greater part matches the major position of physicalism.

Some other questions which I would like to peer into and try to find out more on, would be as follows:

What earliest information do we have on the "Buddha spirit?" (my Japanese-Japanese dictionary here at the house (where I am now) is not so clear on that meaning. )
What do the textual points do in defining the meaning of "enlightenment?"

 

[Mike Cash]

It was Sunday and I was at home, typing on my computer.

I don't think the fact that Buddhism hinges on rebirth (not necessarily reincarnation) should be taken as evidence of it being a theistic system. That Brahmanism also has it may be somewhat of a red herring here.

It seems to have just been an accepted fact for that time and area, Buddhism doesn't hold that there is any god who started it in motion or who keeps it in motion. When one dies (and hasn't achieved enlightenment, thus getting off the rebirth merry-go-round) it is held that the nature of one's subsequent rebirth is due entirely to what one has done in this current life; there is no god who after a judgment either rewards or punishes the deceased with a better or worse subsequent rebirth. It is simply "What goes around comes around" and what comes around to you the next time is decided by what you do this time. There's no divine being involved in it anywhere.

And even though over the centuries Buddhism picked up enough gods, devas, spirits, and other assorted other-worldly creatures to make it look like some sort of government make-work full employment scheme none of them are considered to be the Creator.

In fact, Buddhism is also unique in that it has a heaven.....but going there is not the goal. For it is held that nothing is permanent and unchangeable, so even the gods in heaven must eventually perish and be subject to rebirth. And having had things so utterly fantastic (it's heaven after all) their loss is all the greater. If the notion of leaving this mortal world with all its troubles and woes is unappealing, imagine how much more you would hate leaving heaven.

So despite all the various gods which have slowly built up on the body of Buddhism like barnacles accruing on the hull of a ship, I don't think it anywhere near accurate to consider it a theistic based religion. No more than you would consider a ship a barnacle based vessel.

 

[Mars Man]

A real quicky here, Mike Cash, if I may. I see; yes a regular key board is much easier. Glad you had that time and space to do that.

Yes, I do feel I can follow through with your reasoning, and would neither--in any straight, across the board manner--say that concepts merely carried over from Siddhartha's training in the Vedic literature of Brahmanism (as had likely been the case, it is inferred), and worked on within his philosophy would be enough to categorize his body of teaching as being a theist-based religious belief system. That said, I yet wonder just how clearly, and to what degree, we can deny the influence of the system that it borrowed from for some key tenets. It is still something which I have lingering there.

Then, just in case (for clarity's sake) I might rephrase the first sentence of the third paragraph below the quote in my #15 above, as follows: As the circumstance practice and worship within Buddhism at large presently stands, I hold it to be a theist-based religious belief system. There are other things that I wish to inquire on, inspect, throw around a bit, and argue towards or against (depending) later on. I do think it will prove to be an interesting thread, indeed. (And since my intention was to have it be broad, and since so far it is, I am pleased with that.)

 

[Mike Cash]

Buddhism was rather more a total repudiation and rejection of Brahmanism than it was a development which built upon it. It is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that since they share in common the concept of rebirth that theism also played a role in the development of Buddhism.

It is often said that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion. But I am of the mind that it started as neither. I think it was an attempt at using rational thought as a means of explaining what was taken to be a natural phenomenon. To understand what I'm talking about you would need to familiarize yourself with the "twelve causes", which were his attempt to show how our own minds lead to our being reborn. If our own minds are the cause for perpetuating the cycle, then they can also be the means for escaping the cycle.....no god, saint, angel, demigod, deva, or fairy godmother involved in it anywhere whatsoever.

Buddhism rejects the notion of "self" and the notion of a discrete and everlasting "soul", and certainly you don't require a god upon which to build something with those characteristics.

No....the concept of rebirth in that time and place was taken to be as much a part of natural law as were the idea of parthenogenesis and the medical theory of the four humours or the idea of the four elements later on in Greece and Rome. Buddhism arose as an attempt to understand it rationally. People added the religious trappings later on, and there is no harm to it nor are they antithetical, so long as they help a person toward the goal. Remember, it doesn't matter what path you take just so long as you get there (in strong contrast to other much more dogmatic religions). One of the key aspects of Buddhism is the concept of 方便 (houben), usually translated into English as "skillful means", presumably by somebody whose vocabulary didn't include the word "expediency". Any means, method, device, parable, allegory, or whatever else that serves to move one along the path toward the goal is an expediency and is fair game and welcome. So if there are people for whom it is a help to have a cosmology and rituals, then there is nothing in elementary Buddhism to prohibit it...to the contrary, it is welcome. When you start with no supreme beings, then you don't have any to get jealous when you later on decide to import a few gods. If there are people who can move along the path without the expediency of gods, then that is fine and dandy too. I think this is also a large part of why you don't see Buddhists attacking and killing each other over doctrinal differences between sects, as you see with some other religions. There is no supreme god whose laws are being offended or who demands vengeance against the offenders. True, some Buddhists think other Buddhists are heretics, but they don't have a god to avenge so they just content themselves with thinking the other guys are misguided or misinformed and let it go at that.

I think we foreigners in Japan, a nation of largely notional Buddhists, get a warped view of Buddhism due to what it has evolved into here, which for most of the people most of the time is merely an adjunct of the funeral industry. That plus the fact that Japan is one of the places where Mahayana Buddhism flourished. It is the Mahayana tradition which is loaded down with various godlike Buddhas and Boddhisatvas, and seeing representations of them so much here we may naturally be inclined to think they were a part of Buddhism from the beginning and played a key and elemental role in it. Problem is....they weren't and they didn't. What ended up happening in Japan is that most people focused on the encrustations of barnacles to the point that they lost sight of the fact there is (or ever was) a ship that the barnacles are attached to. Not everyone, by any means, but a large portion of the Japanese who will answer "Buddhist" if you ask their religion couldn't tell you the first thing about it other than some stuff to do with funerary rituals and have only the vaguest notions (or none at all) about the founding principles behind it.

I'm afraid that no matter how you slice it Buddhism is not a theistic based religion, not even indirectly through borrowing from the Vedic traditions.

 

[Mars Man]

I wonder then, if the might not be some difference in the matter of differences in the descriptive defintion of what is meant by 'Buddhism,' and 'theist-based religious belief system,' and a matter of interpretations possible (and there are surely a couple, or more, at least) of the Buddhist information source at large (canonical texts and said oral traditions). While it may not be totally within the scope of this thread, I tend to think of it as largely being so (wishful thinking?), thus would like to at least present more argumentation on the understanding that I hold. (Which, I guess you can even tell with this much, Mike Cash, differs.) Please allow me to kind of present my take, for comparison and testing, while, at the same time, I comment on a few points and places in your presentation, Mike Cash.

What I have learned, is that in all inspection of religious belief systems, be they theist-based (which by far most are) or non-theist based, we find a general continuum of development. Even so, we will usually find generally blocked off 'segments' (so to put it) which are represented in rather closed doctrinal bodies (information sources); especially as found in written form. These represent what may be called 'breaks in the chain' which distinguish primary information sources of a different, newer system. For example, it is by this means that we can say we have an earlier early Christian information source which is largely loaned from the Jewish information source, but which is not simply an extension of the Jewish information source. We can see this in the Mesopotamian systems, as well as in the Indus systems. The bottom line for primary analysis and understanding, therefore, ought to maintain the better methodological process of starting from primary information sources.

The Pali textual library provides the major portion of the primary canonical information source, along with non-canonical (as I have seen it suggested) Jakata, but even these are rather recent. We have, to the best of my understanding, at least 200 years between the death of Siddhartha Gautama (hereafter Siddhartha) and King Ashok--who more likely really got the teachings of Siddhartha, as a religious belief system, going. That was third century BCE. The Pali texts may possibly be exemplars from around the first century BCE, in part, and then some documents added in the second century CE. This is what will be held to be the primary information source base; we only then have to take into consideration relatively close that the time period (say, pre-1000 CE) to establish what we can hold as an authoritative information source.

As is exactly the case, for example, with the best understanding of the Christian information source as of the end of the second decade of the second century CE, the oral tradition was somewhat overridden by the 're-writing of the gospel narrative' in textual format. Therefore while we can give some room for accuracy in spirit (especially) and word, and benefit of the doubt, we cannot, just as in the textual tradition of both Christianity and Judaism, know the very specifics of exactly what Siddhartha had taught, nor can deny that a good degree of embellishment has occurred.

Straining out the embellishment the best that can be done, and inferring from other 'knowns' and 'as-good-as-knowns' about lifestyle and social circumstances of the era, Siddhartha would have gone through his 'coming-of-age' (so to put it) Vedic training, and after that is said to have married Yosodhara, and then leave home soon after the birth of his son. It is clear that the underpinnings of his world view at that time, would most certainly have been Brahmanism-Vedic bases.

Buddhism was rather more a total repudiation and rejection of Brahmanism than it was a development which built upon it. It is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that since they share in common the concept of rebirth that theism also played a role in the development of Buddhism.

Yes, I fully agree that we would want to be careful with our logic, as well as with our investigation into the information source which is primary for Buddhism post 1000 CE. I will have to spend some time, some day (I guess) going over the detail more deeply, and do not totally feel comfortable with the statement in the contribution to New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "While frequently regarded as a new religion, Buddhism is, strictly speaking, only a reformation of Brahmanism, and can not be understood without some knowledge of the conditions preceeding it." (Vol II, p 292) My summation on this point, is that while we can maintain that because some elements of Vedic/Brahman teaching were kept (esp. transmigration, karma, dharma, and dissolution of self,...) with Siddhartha's teaching that came down to us, that fact does not provide a reason in and of itself to lead to the conclusion that his teaching did not represent a 'break in the chain.' I do think it does--just as Jainism, which arose about the same time did too. However, this understanding says nothing about Buddhism post 1000 CE, nor, Buddhism today.

I will have to spread this over a number of posts, I do believe. One reason is the time which I do not have to sit for one long period these days, and another is my desire to run back over some past notes and stuff, and then work in a somewhat detailed way. I am including posts numbers 16 and 18 in my response commentation/presentation. Apologies for the slowness. (ps. I'll have to edit late, apologies again....)

 

[Mars Man]

To recap the above (and this post is directed to the open audience for the most part anyway): it reasons out balanced enough to me, to understand that most likely Siddhartha's contemporaneous body of teaching was not simply an off-branch of a new philosophical take within the Brahmin system, as Mike Cash has also reported on, but was distinct from it--and noteably likely anit-Vedic, anti-Brahmin ritual, and anti-theist in nature. However, we cannot claim, at the same time, to know exactly and explicitly just what the actual full body of teaching was, any more that we can expect to know about the historical Siddhartha in such a manner as well.

As for the information source for post 1000 CE Buddhism (if we want to keep that title, that is), we have primarily the Pali texts, and a few others. In maintaining a proven methodological analytical process, we have no choice but to take these as amounting to the primary information source which is the Buddhist system at large, today.

Having read over and studied your presentation more careful (not insinuating that it is exhastively enough, of course), Mike Cash, I still find facts, and as-good-as-facts in place, to the best of my understanding. It is for that reason that I figured it must be the descriptive definitions which might be causing our diverging conclusions. Let me expound and amplify the 'theist-based religious belief system' notion.

The reason for my coming up with this terminology, was to help clarify in the area of discussion in this general subject matter. The word 'religion' is vague, and can cause confusion when being switched in a single discussion from a religion in the sense of a rather organized system of belief with an information source (texts and early contemporaneous documents) and so on, and, the general emotional condition of expressing felt awe, wonder, desire for, or longing for, knowledge, understanding, or guidance in lifestyle and so on. The former is a theist-based religious belief system, while the latter, I hold at 'religion,' or 'being religious.' (which latter can encompass a pretty broad range, for example, those die hard Elvis fans who hold him as a god-figure)

As far as I have looked into it, Buddhism is the only living, active belief system which raises any questions about being a theist-based religious belief system, or not, although some native American systems may. One thing I would like to point out here, is that while, to fit this descriptive definition, a system will posit or/and publish a god, or goddess, or any number of them, it is not necessary that that god, or goddess, or any of the several included in the information source of that system, be a supreme god, or a creator. There are a number of such systems in early Mesopotamia, and surely in other locations of several centuries before our common era. The only required determining factor, then, is the positing and publishing of deity, or deities, in the information source which builds the system, in an active manner that has bearing on the teachings, primer movers within the said history of the system (or elements of nature that the source specifies), worship activities, and moral demands.

I really liked your analogy in your post number 16 (and extended in #18), Mike Cash. It was quite picturesque, and very true to the metaphoric style which is quite down to earth and easy to see. I tend to reason--when looking at it in application--that it might bias the presented notion too much towards one of passiveness. It might seem to suggest that jsut as the ship did nothing other than remaining as 'being as a ship,' an all the barnacles came and attached themselves to its hull, the religious system whch is Buddhism today (or, say, for ease of argumentation post 1000 CE [or one could even say post 200 CE]) did nothing actively, and all the god models just came and attached themselves to its core.

I then thought of one concern to possible consider. Do we want to call this sytem at large, Buddhism? Would we find that we have any more practical and productive-in-outcome effect in keeping Siddhartha's 'as-ascertainable-as-possible' original body of teaching as Buddhism, and this over-all system today, something else? Or might we want to argue for the former as being best call 'Siddharthaism,' and allowing the latter to keep its current title? It seems to be a little like the situation in Christianity--do we want to call the earlier early members of Yeshua's group Christians, and that general body of today something else (Augustinians?), or the former 'Yeshuans,' and allow the latter to keep the name Christians.

The reason being, that as we both seem to be aware of, reason, and agree on, the orginal body of teaching was more likely simply not theistic in nature at all; and in a worse case scenario, a local movement with different explanation of some Vedic-Brahmanism tenets with the added twists of outright rejecting the ritual and information source (in the most part), and the theist element. However, the information source for Buddhism at large today, especially, as you have presented, the mahayana branch, quite noticeably posits and publishes gods, and presents even Siddhartha as a deity of sorts through incarnation. In this sense, it fits the descriptive definition by such, and its activity, of being a theist-based religious belief system. I will acquiesce that some areas of the general Buddhist system (such as that of the southern area of Sri Lanka) as almost passing under the radar, however, but see no way to actually avoid the conclusion I have settled on.

 

[Mike Cash]

But assuming that because he grew up in a Vedic environment that Buddhism must be just an offshoot of that and therefore theistic based would be exactly the same as assuming that because the world's first vegetarian grew up in a meat eating society then vegetarianism must be a meat based dietary system....when an examination of the facts reveal that, to the contrary, vegetarianism is a repudiation of a meat based dietary system.

I think you may perhaps be overlooking the word "based" in your own terminology here: Buddhism is in no way, shape, manner or form "based" on anything even remotely theistic.

As you know from our personal connection over the years, but which others here don't, I spend quite a bit of time hunting up and photographing various Buddhist relics along the rural roadsides here. Based on extensive contact with that sort of material and a realization that I knew nothing about Buddhism, much less the place in Buddhist cosmology of the figures I encountered, I set out to learn something about it. I will tell you quite frankly that I fully expected to find a system that was theistic. I didn't see how it could be otherwise. What I found out was that I actually knew less than nothing about Buddhism.

Rather than approach it from "so-and-so says such-and-such about the history of Buddhism" I have approached it from "what does Buddhism teach as its founding, core principles?" and have used several sources. And the more I read and the more I learned the more I found myself saying....in a rather vexed and perplexed manner...."Then where do all these godlike creatures figure into this???". No deity or even semi-divine being figures into the core principles and teaching in any way whatsoever and trust me, I was fully on the lookout for them to figure in there in some way. I have often privately remarked that I think in many cases Christianity has turned from being a religion into being pop psychology. I think Buddhism went the opposite route and turned from natural philosophy into religion.

Look at the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the central importance of the principle of cause and effect, and the Twelve-Linked Chain of Causation (and the five skandhas) which form the essence and core of both Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism and what you will find is an attempt to explain "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (thank you, Douglas Adams) based entirely on empirical observations and rational thought. You can argue that some of the premises or conclusions may be flawed, but the case that can't be made is that any part of it rests on anything the slightest bit theistic. I went into it specifically looking for it; it ain't there. I don't see how even the most strongly principled god-hating Atheist could find anything about the core founding principles of Buddhism the least bit religiously objectionable. Logically objectionable, perhaps, but not religiously objectionable.

We see Buddha listed among important historical religious figures of the world, or perhaps more rarely among the philosophers, but if I think it would be more illustrative to compare him to Joseph Priestley and his discovery of oxygen.

Buddha didn't so much invent a religion as he did figure out the inner workings of what were simple observable phenomena. Unlike in some other religions, Buddha's teachings didn't hold that salvation was only available through some divine being, the revealed word of some divine being, or the intercession of some special earthly intermediary. The teachings don't even claim that the potential for enlightenment only arose upon being expounded by Buddha....no more than than it could be said that there was no oxygen to be breathed until Priestley discovered it. The potential for enlightenment and the path to enlightenment were looked at as matters of natural law....they were always there, always had been there, and always would be there....Buddha just figured them out and taught people about them. Priestley discovered oxygen; he didn't invent it. Buddha discovered (through rational analysis, flawed or not) a path to get off the rebirth merry-go-round; he didn't build the merry-go-round.

In the process, he ended up with a system which goes a long way toward promoting personal behavior which is beneficial both to one's self and toward the production of a peaceful, considerate, and benevolent society while managing to have no elements (that I can see) which promote any of the nasty behaviors individuals and societies have historically afflicted each other with. I think that is a pretty damned remarkable and commendable achievement and an area which some other religions would do well to emulate.

If you would care to read it (and I suspect you'd like it), I will loan you my copy of Systems of Buddhistic Thought. It is an amazingly in-depth look at the philosophical origins of Buddhism and of the various philosophical (not theological) differences among the many schools of the big schism in Indian Buddhism. It was written by a Japanese priest, Yamakami Sogen, who was a scholar of Buddhism (naturally) and an expert on Sanskrit and Pali. The book was written in 1912 for the specific purpose of acquainting scholars in India with the subject matter through a series of lectures while he was a visiting scholar at the University of Calcutta. It made my head hurt; you'll eat it up with a spoon.

 

[Mike Cash]

If anything in my #21 appears to have ignored your #20 it is simply due to your having posted #20 while I spent a busy solid hour typing in #21 with one finger on this damned iPhone.

 

[Mars Man]

If anything in my #21 appears to have ignored your #20 it is simply due to your having posted #20 while I spent a busy solid hour typing in #21 with one finger on this damned iPhone.

Wow !! And that is well worthy of a sign of soulful and heartfelt dedication and involvement. Perhaps many would have ended up throwing the phone against the wall by the 4th paragraph. Me? Well, as you will know, I would have finished it to the end too, but instead of one solid hour, it would surely have taken 3... hee, hee, hee... Please allow me to kind of touch on a few points. I will have to let this rest for a while, after today.

I think you may perhaps be overlooking the word "based" in your own terminology here: Buddhism is in no way, shape, manner or form "based" on anything even remotely theistic.

This is a valid point, and objection, I reason, on the matter of the term 'based' in my terminology. I can see how that word might bias the reader to conjure up the notion of a 'base' from which something builds, or is worked on. That would, I agree, present a need for a better term. I had hoped, when first formulating the hypothesis back some time ago, that by wording it as 'theist-based religious belief system' rather than 'thiest based religious belief system,' I would avoid that probability enough. I hold that there are belief systems which will fall under the category of 'religious belief systems' which will not be 'theist-based' I think we can find some New Age systems which might fit that, and if, for example, Process Philosophy (e.g. A.N. Whitehead) had not adopted the word "God" in its formation (information source) it would be an example. The body of the teachings of Siddhartha also, very much present a 'religious belief system' which more likely had not posted nor publish any deity of any sorts.

But even if the hyphenated form, which can be fairly well argued (I hold) to be distinguishable from the non-hyphenated form, presents problems, then maybe we should work on a change. On the way here to the office this morning I had thought about that (having read your post before bed time last night) and wonder if you would tend to think that 'theist-oriented' might help prevent that misleading?

And the more I read and the more I learned the more I found myself saying....in a rather vexed and perplexed manner...."Then where do all these godlike creatures figure into this???". No deity or even semi-divine being figures into the core principles and teaching in any way whatsoever and trust me, I was fully on the lookout for them to figure in there in some way. I have often privately remarked that I think in many cases Christianity has turned from being a religion into being pop psychology. I think Buddhism went the opposite route and turned from natural philosophy into religion.

Again, as for that last thought there, yes, quite surely so. At the same time, however, one difference between what we hold presently (at least) is that from what I have learned in this field (not just related towards any specific system block, but related to a universal that we find in all the development of them all) is that we have to leave some margin for lack of exact and specific historical record. So, while I do (as I have said, and trust you understand) agree with the position you are arguing for, as it relates to the body of teachings of Siddhartha, I am not willing to completely deny that there could be something we do not know. Which leads into the following:

Look at the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the central importance of the principle of cause and effect, and the Twelve-Linked Chain of Causation (and the five skandhas) which form the essence and core of both Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism and what you will find is an attempt to explain "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (thank you, Douglas Adams) based entirely on empirical observations and rational thought. You can argue that some of the premises or conclusions may be flawed, but the case that can't be made is that any part of it rests on anything the slightest bit theistic.

Yes, agreed on the major point here--as per Siddhartha's original body of teaching as best we know it. Also, Douglas N. Adams (I presume?) put together some good works. (If I am wrong on the person intended, apologies offered.)

In the process, he ended up with a system which goes a long way toward promoting personal behavior which is beneficial both to one's self and toward the production of a peaceful, considerate, and benevolent society while managing to have no elements (that I can see) which promote any of the nasty behaviors individuals and societies have historically afflicted each other with. I think that is a pretty damned remarkable and commendable achievement and an area which some other religions would do well to emulate.

Yes especially with this last comment, but with the other points to (only holding some reserve for the matter of the degree of benefit in some main drives of his philosophy's a priori assumptions) too, I fully agree.

If you would care to read it (and I suspect you'd like it), I will loan you my copy of Systems of Buddhistic Thought. It is an amazingly in-depth look at the philosophical origins of Buddhism and of the various philosophical (not theological) differences among the many schools of the big schism in Indian Buddhism. It was written by a Japanese priest, Yamakami Sogen, who was a scholar of Buddhism (naturally) and an expert on Sanskrit and Pali. The book was written in 1912 for the specific purpose of acquainting scholars in India with the subject matter through a series of lectures while he was a visiting scholar at the University of Calcutta. It made my head hurt; you'll eat it up with a spoon.

Yes, I would love to read and study it. I do not want to even pretend, nevertheless, that it would not make my head hurt either--even though Ihave gone over a number of treatise on Buddhist philosophy of mind. (Which do bear heavily on the Sanskrit, and on Vedic philosophy too, but I have dictionary access and can read it, s that did help a little [Oh... read does NOT mean understand, Sanskit is 99.99% phoetic])

 

[Mike Cash]

Then unless I forget to pack it I will hand it to you next week. If I forget to pack it, the parcel guy will hand it to you sometime after that.

 

[Mars Man]

Sounds Great! I look forward to that. Just in case, I have now edited the above posts, adding a missing 'not' in the second paragraph. Hope your finger isn't sore today from that intense work of yesterday. Anyway, I have a short Havana cigar to reward you with for all that, when you get here next Thursday? was it?