--- In [email protected], "Bill Smart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >On Saturday, December 17 dkotschessa posted: > >>On Friday, December 16 Bill Smart posted: > >> Since we have to use words on this forum I first want to make sure we're > >> using the words the same. The relevant terms here and my working > >> definitions are: > >> - THEIST: One who believes in the existence of God or gods. > >> - ATHEIST: One who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. > >> - GNOSTIC: One who one who believes it is possible to know about the > existence of God and the essential nature of things. > >> - AGNOSTIC: One who believes it is impossible to know anything about > the existence of God or the essential nature of anything. > >> > >> Using those definitions and the usual definition of 'God or gods', > I'd say zen is ATHEISTIC. > > >You forgot one. :) > > > >I prefer non-theistic. Zen is a practice, not really a philosophy. > >It is really much like a trade like plumbing. The plumber is > >concerned with the plumbing, getting the crap out of the toilet. > >When she is talking about pipes and crap, the subject of god does not > >play into her plumbing. What she does when she leaves is up to her. > > > >Buddhism is the four noble truths and the eightfold path. Anybody > >can practice it. > > > I assume by 'non-theistic' you mean something like 'does not have a position > on god' or 'does not care one way or the other'. If so, I agree. I thought > of that when I wrote the previous post but finally decided 'atheistic' was > closer. > > Either way I believe attempts at categorizations like this are just games > with words and don't really mean much. I definitely enjoy the games but > don't take them too seriously. > > I thought the definitions of 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' were more pertinent > and, leaving aside the reference to 'god', depended on how you define 'know' > in the definition. > > Gassho...Bill! >
"It's all good" Bill. :) When playing word games, I sometimes use or move away from certain terminology based not on etymological precision, but on the amount of cultural "baggage" a certain word might bringi along. To me there is a certain image of an "atheist" that people tend to have, which does not fit the profile of most Buddhists that I know. I declared myself an atheist years ago to distance myself from my upbringing (as a Jehovah's Witness). But it was a very agnst-y sort of notion. So now I prefer non-theistic and I view God as just not relevant in terms of [my] spiritual growth. I use the *word* God sometimes when speaking to certain people, but for me, the notions and images that the word stirs up are not appropriate for my kind of spirituality. I believe there are as Joseph Campbell says "Masks of God." So you can call it the Tao, absolute truth, reality, Buddha nature, emptiness, everything-ness, Brahma, Frank, Billybob, Susie, Uma, Oprah, Eve, Adam, Atom, Quanta, Quark, wavicle... "It's all good." -DaveK ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
