Philosophical Vegan Forum

I have been a Buddhist and Atheist for years now. Not a Vegan. But great Vids and stuff. Great work.

Welcome Teak. How is it possible to be both a Buddhist and an atheist? Do you believe in reincarnation and Nirvana?

Welcome (:

And yea, the first part seems a bit shaky, but I know you can explain it in full detail (:

Take your time here, and share your opinions if you wish. We are decent people... we won't bite ^_^

teak, are you freegan?

Otherwise, you aren't much of a Buddhist. There's scriptural and philosophical precedent for freeganism, but not outright carnism. I can go into more detail if you need.

Buddhism is a matter of practice, not mere faith, compared to Christianity. Particularly for atheistic Buddhists who ostensibly don't believe in magic.
In Christianity, as long as you believe, you can do anything you want, (rape, genocide, it's all good -- Jesus got your back).
Buddhism is a matter of following a methodology and practice of right living.

If you eat meat that you have purchased (that animal was killed for you, through supply and demand), then you are not practicing Buddhism.

It's important to note, that "Tibetan Buddhism" is about as Buddhist as Mormonism is Catholic. Rife with gods, superstition, and a strict theocracy and class system, with little to nothing to do with the actual teachings of Gautama or others who legitimately advanced Buddhist philosophy.
Semantically they may have a historical claim to the word, but that's about as far as it goes.
Since you said you're an atheist, I made some assumptions about your following a more legitimate or "pure" Buddhism deriving from philosophy, and not the mess of superstition and legalistic loopholes that is the Tibetan heresy.

Look into Mahayana Buddhism; their philosophical systems are most sound and least dogmatic (as compared to Theravada, which is more closed and dogmatic), and least superstitious (as compared to Vajrayana, from which Tibetans usually draw, along with all sorts of other nonsense).

Here's a really basic comparison:
http://www.ehow.com/info_8644906_differ ... tions.html

Theravada is technically the oldest (although that's debatable too, since they all had periods where to varying degrees they formed and evolved), but that doesn't mean it's any more sound. Unless you take the dogmatic/superstitious approach, rather than the philosophical/scientific approach. That would be like saying alchemy is more sound than modern Chemistry because it's older.

Although Mahayana itself contains a number of schools, not all of which are equally sound, that at least will send you in the right direction in your studies, if you're trying to take the rational approach.

Hello Tino, welcome to the forum! I hope you have enlightening conversations with us about religion, theism, veganism, and/or whatever other topics you are passionate about.

Jebus wrote:How is it possible to be both a Buddhist and an atheist?

"Buddhist Atheist" is only a contradiction if the individual in question believes that Buddha(s) is/are God(s), or if they believe in some kind of God beyond the teachings of their form of Buddhism. Many Buddhists do not believe that Buddha(s) and other enlightened beings are actually gods, and so it is quite common for many Buddhists to be atheists as well. After all, the term "atheism" only describes lack of belief in the existence of God(s), but otherwise says nothing about what religious beliefs (or any other beliefs) a person does or does not hold.

ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:or if they believe in some kind of God beyond the teachings of their form of Buddhism. [...] After all, the term "atheism" only describes lack of belief in the existence of God(s), but otherwise says nothing about what religious beliefs (or any other beliefs) a person does or does not hold.

More specifically, atheism describes a lack of theism. There's a subtle distinction, as theism is not just about having a passive assumption of the actual existence of a being others call a god, but reverence and deference to that being (in the classical sense, calling it "god" is more of a title, like "king").
That is, you can believe in the King of England (well, when it had one), without calling him your king.
This usually, but not always, involves differences in the beliefs of the qualities these beings possess.

But atheism only means that you have no god, not that you don't believe that the beings that other people call gods exist.

That said, Buddhism did inherit belief in the beings called Devas from Vedic mythology, along with other "god-like" supernatural beings, but according to Buddhist teachings (the supernatural ones), these beings are caught in Samsara like all others, and can not lead people to enlightenment.
They are not gods (with respect to deserving worship, being immortal, or many other qualities)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Budd ... e_not_gods

This is probably closer to a reflection of ancient vedic teachings rather than modern Hinduism, although it was also heresy then. Being atheistic was one of the main disagreements that split Buddhism from Hinduism.

In this sense, regarding its teachings on the irrelevance of these "god" beings (but not their non-existence), is is very similar to Ancient Greek Epicureanism (no relation to "foodie", as is the modern incorrect usage), which was also called atheism at the time (it was, and still is).

Anyway, the point is that Devas are within the supernatural canon (if you take the supernatural elements seriously) of Buddhism, but in the same breath, it discredits them as gods. So, it wouldn't just be belief in beings beyond Buddhism, but a heretical contradiction to the teachings of Buddhism, because Buddhism is very explicitly atheistic (that is, not regarding them as worthy of worship) toward such beings.

Considering Gautama or other Buddhas to be gods is also very questionable, but that's another topic, and also gets into the issue of Christians considering Yeshua a deity (deification of a religion's founder against the teachings of that founder is either disappointingly or hilariously common, depending on your view).

Thanks for the Welcome, Buddhist is not a Theist religion. Buddha is not god. Reincarnation is up to the Buddhist believer, that is optional. Nirvana is not a place nor heaven, but your mind clearly opened to the reality of the world.
Jinen Honi-Naturalness: Seeing the world just as it exists. Not allBuddhist sects are rational. Further.

http://ichinyo dot wordpress.com

Hi teak, welcome to the forum. Do you believe in the many supernatural tenants of Buddhism?

Buddha's are not Gods, you seem to be deeply confused. There are Buddhist figures that seem like Gods but they are all Aspects of the mind. The Mahayana view is called Sambohgaya, expedient Buddhas. Supernatural stories in Buddhism are called expedient means (Upaya). BS Stories that tell the truth. Buddhist do not relay on Books. As the saying goes, Everyday life is Buddha Dharma, Buddha Dharma is Everyday life. Just meaning Life is a matter of empirical experiences. Books are like pointing to the moon.

For further reading http:;//ichinyo.wordpress.com