Why do Christians on this board struggle so much to understand that Buddhism is nontheistic at most, and atheistic at its norm?
Buddhists may accept the fact that there are devas in the Heaven-realms, and that they have some measure of power over the human world. However, these 'deities' themselves are unenlightened and trapped in samsara: they are not worthy of respect or worship, and they cannot deliver an individual from his karma or from the cycle of rebirth. They are not all-powerful or omniscient. They are not creator deities. Some are even deluded due to their own perceived power and bliss.
These devas simply accumulated good karma in past lives and were reborn in the realms of bliss, and after their lifetimes end and their good karma has expired, will be reborn either in the human world or in the Hell-realms.
Those beings known as Wisdom Kings or Wrathful Deities in Mahayana are not proper deities per se: they are merely devas who, having accepted the teachings of the Buddha, defend the Dharma so that sentient beings can learn them. They cannot deliver anyone, and realistically, they are more symbolic than literal.
Boddhisattvas are not deities: they are - at most - like Catholic saints: worthy of veneration, but can only help/aid a person reach enlightenment; they are not personal saviours, nor are they creator deities, despite their high status. They are helpers.
Theravada does not even place emphasis on or acknowledge Boddhisattvas or Wrathful Deities/Wisdom Kings: therefore, Theravada is atheistic, whereas Mahayana tends to nontheism. No gods or divinities are worshiped: the only worthy goal is to find enlightenment and be liberated from the aimless cycle of rebirth and suffering (rather than the Christian conception of the ultimate goal being to have a deity take you in).
>>1331944
>ZE EUPHORIAO
>ability to cancel out Stands through shear nonbelief
>>1331944
Christians and fedoras alike talk shit about belief systems they've never studied themselves, wow you think the sun will rise tommorow?
>>1331944
Not all Christians are worried about what Buddhist believe or don't believe when we actually believe in the same thing.
>>1331959
>Christians talk shit about belief systems they've never studied themselves
FTFY
>nontheistic/ atheistic
>affirms the existence of deities
Pick one
>>1332003
t.triggered Christcuck
>>1332011
But it's true, how is the Buddhist view of deities all that different from the Hellenistic view of them?
>>1332026
Divine beings that are the source and guarantors of cosmic order vs. a more virtuous class of existence
>>1332026
Deities in the Hellenistic sense are beings who are a reflection/manifestation of a supreme divine principle.
Devas in Buddhism are merely beings who are experiencing bliss due to their attainment of good karma in past lives. They are not a reflection of any divine and eternal principle.
The other difference is that deities in the Hellenistic sense can be appealed to: they can answer prayers, deliver individuals, and even deify humans and turn them into deities.
Devas cannot aid humans in their path to enlightenment.
How is Buddhism 'theistic'? Even if you would say these devas are 'deities', how can it be theistic when these 'deities' are ignored and believed to be impotent?
>>1331944
Well in certain sects, some devas may have a roll as protectors of the darma, or as manifestations of various Buddha or Bodhisattva. and certainly are worshiped or at least called upon
>>1331944
The deva thing sounds polytheistic to me. You don't need to believe gods are worthy of whorship, benevolent or all-powerful for them to be gods.
I don't know about you OP but I hail Dainichi Nyorai on the daily.
Seriously though as a Buddhist it saddens me that most Westerners don't actually care about the tenets of the religion (yes, it is a religion) beyond getting back at their Christian dads.
>>1332062
How can it be polytheistic if they're not worshiped?
>immaterial reality exists along with material reality
>it all wasn't all created by the Perfect Being
>>1332274
>implying a theistic God is not still a conditioned being
>implying the Buddha was gonna let himself get cucked by celestial existence
>implying the Buddha wasn't so fucking based he wasn't even satisfied with Heaven itself
I believe calling the devas 'deities' is a mistake.
The devas are merely another set of sentient beings.
>>1332080
How you cannot? Deva literally means god, and they believe the devas exist, if ancient buddhists were actively atheistic or non-theistic they would've been scrapped completely. Buddhism doesn't deny you the existence of gods and in fact they're important in the cosmology of the faith, which makes it polytheistic. The reasons that make those gods not worshiped is independent and unrelated to this.
There's literally nothing wrong with being a polytheist.
>>1332297
So are gods in other mythologies, specially compared to the abrahamic one. They are born, they reproduce, they die, they feel and they're subject to greater forces like fate.
>>1332326
I still think the use of the word 'polytheism' is wrong.
I believe some form of 'henotheism' is more appropriate: that is, the existence of deities is accepted, even if they are irrelevant.
>>1332348
Henotheism doesn't mean that, though. And henotheism not only is not contradictory with polytheism, but also hardly can exist without a polytheistic cosmovision.
I'm seriously considering converting to buddhism. I am not sure which school yet.
My main issue is that I don't understand why buddhism rejects the idea of a creator. To me it makes no sense for the world and karma to exist coincidentally.
However I believe that karma and all that shit is the absolute truth.
Am I even on the right mindset to become a buddhist? I am extremely confused about everything and my baka gaijin brain cannot comprehend
>>1332560
>However I believe that karma and all that shit is the absolute truth.
Why? What have you experinced that makes you think so? Do you have memories of being a very well-behaved farm animal in a previous life, and you think you are now reborn as a first-world human because of it?
