Kenazis wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:05 am
Any view – spiritual/religious and non-spiritual – is atheistic (absent of gods) if there is no belief in God/gods. What I mean, is saying most of the Buddhist views as atheistic is correct in the first mentioned meaning of the word.
I am far from being an expert on this so I'm not entirely sure, but from the outside it seems to me that the system of buddhas, boddhisattvas etc. forms a terminology for higher entities, a system that is not far from the hierarchies of gods or angels of Hinduism and Christianity. There are some names for entities that are even shared with Hindu pantheons (for example Tara who is also present in Vajrayana). If I am not blinded by something here, the major difference seems to be emphasising that most if not all(?) of these entities were once human and thus opening the vista of possibilities for the practicing mind. But the same idea can be also found from some esoteric forms of Christianity as human beings becoming angels, although I can not rule out such ideas coming straight from Buddhism as the esoteric currents have been more open in their syncretism.
It is quite interesting to note how in Christian metaphysics Christ is the Logos - the Word - from which all creation emanates forth, and comparative studies have often suggested Avalokitesvara as a Buddhist equivalent of Christ. An interesting piece of information on the name Avalokitesvara from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:The earliest translation of the name Avalokiteśvara into Chinese by authors such as Xuanzang was as Guānzìzài (Chinese: 觀自在), not the form used in East Asian Buddhism today, Guanyin (Chinese: 觀音). It was initially thought that this was due to a lack of fluency, as Guanyin indicates the original Sanskrit form was instead Avalokitasvara, "who looked down upon sound", i.e., the cries of sentient beings who need help.
I will take the liberty to interpret the translation to note how this divinity relates to the world of creation through sound (order creating principle, an imprint of order on the chaotic state of Maya) and perhaps revealing the same idea that is behind the Christian Logos. There's also a similar distance to the world with both of these divinities. Jesus as a teacher gave the requirements which being fulfilled leads to the Kingdom of Heaven, leaving Christ to wait for the students to come to him. Similar idea is present already in this name variation of the Buddhist entity as Avalokitasvara, as it is something that awaits above, compassionately open to receive and connect to the lower sphere through
sounds of sorrow, yet waiting for the students to make their own way and thus keeping the distance.
Kenazis wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:05 am
And when you start to practice this, there is no need for gods (they are just speculation, an unimportant theory).
At the beginning it is indeed more important to focus on the practice that will lay out the foundation, which might build up to a temple of worship at some point. Although gods can become major distractions from reality, I must confess there in is this kind of pull of the mysticism to believe, to reverence and to seek a deity that has been important to me from the start. So I don't think it's misleading necessarily, although it can be if we get stuck on a deity and its lower forms. But this is again one point some forms of Buddhism seem to have noted from the start by focusing on practice but still having the idea of some kind of helping or focusing deities to be worked with at some points. It seems like a good foundation to try and avoid harmful relations to exotericism, dogma and other problems with the formal side of religious body, even though such problems can not be avoided completely with this or any other preparation.
, and manages to keep the developmental procession between the lifeforms and hierarches open and clear from the start. I wonder if this has been the main reason for the absence of god in Buddhism. Do you see other reasons or conjoining reasons and concepts behind such doctrine?