Buddhism is a theism. This isn’t really up for dispute. — I like sushi

It is not only 'up for dispute', it's factually incorrect. Buddhism is a religion, sure, but it is not based on the existence of God.

Buddhists believe in a ‘higher plane’ of being and some believe in higher beings. That is a description of theism — I like sushi

Buddhists generally would not accept that.

I don’t much care whether some group of people accept the definition of theism or not. I don’t accept the definition of ‘religion’ as it is commonly used but I do understand roughly how almost everyone else uses it.

You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry.

And as I stated there are groups that hold to the belief in ‘higher beings’ and just because they don’t refer to them as ‘gods’ in the more Judeochristian sense doesn’t make them any less ‘supernatural’ - same goes for Confucianism where it is more or less about ancestor worship (still theistic in that there is ‘other’ or ‘void’ - a beyond).

Not all Christians believe in an actual personification of god either. Many see it is a ‘force’ or ‘power’. That doesn’t make the foundation of Christianity non-theistic though.

Millions of people practically worship buddha (and I mean that literally) I’ve seen it and spoke to people about it who practice this. They don’t know why they are doing it most of the time though and refer to ‘tradition’.

Besides, 'theism' is a word of the internet age. I bet before about 10 years ago, you would never find a description of someone being a 'theist'. It's developed in relation to, and as the opposite of, 'atheism'. A lot of atheists depend on the idea that anyone religious is 'theist' because otherwise it is very difficult to say what exactly they don't believe in. But then, Noam Chomsky once said, 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you can tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in'.

In any case, as far as the view of Theravada Buddhism about 'theism' is concerned, see Buddhism and the God Idea. For a general overview, there's a wiki article on Creator in Buddhism.

You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry. — I like sushi

As the second article above points out, in Buddhism, there is no definite beginning to the world, and so, no need of a creator who acts as the first cause. There are deities some of whom are members of the general Indic pantheon who are incorporated into Buddhist mythology but none of them are regarded as eternal or as the creators of the world.

The problem is you choosing to hold to a very specific and narrow definition of ‘theism’. If the vast majority of people who speak English don’t agree then you will have either repeat what you mean by theism every time you use the term OR just say buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (I’d go with the later).

No, you're stereotyping Buddhism by depicting it in the only terms you know, which is 'theism', as understood by WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) culture.

I have no idea why broadly categorising buddhism under ‘theism’ (rightly and justly done by many) is so upsetting. No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic.

Buddhists generally would not accept that. — Wayfarer

What I've noticed is, if you ask two Buddhists any challenging question about their religion, you get four or more contradictory answers.

No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic. — I like sushi

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.

baker If you wish to experience ‘bliss’ then I can tell you what to do but the chances are you won’t do it. Basically you need to stress yourself for a prolonged period of time. How much and for how long would be completely dependent upon your physiological makeup.

The triggers for altered states of consciousness are sleep deprivation, fasting, intense concentration, trance dance, hyperventilation and/or prolonged periods of ‘pain’ in some form or another. It won’t be pretty but the chances are if you achieve something like the desired goal you won’t recall half of what really happened anyway (in terms of the negative side of it). A lot of it is about being brutally honest with yourself, getting rid of distractions and facing up to fears. — I like sushi

Oh. And you think I don't know that?

Meditation - in the philosophical sense - may get you there. Meditation in the buddhist sense won’t. It can give you glimpses though. What you should be doing is what you want to do. The problem is you don’t know that so just live of a little more instinct and exploration if you are seeking some ‘answer’. Never give up, I mean never … if you experience ‘bliss’ you’ll understand why those words are ironic

Are you enlightened?

If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. You asked what should I do and I assumed you meant in order to attain ‘bliss’ so I answered.

‘Enlightened’ is something a buddhist might say not me. I had an experience that completely changed everything for me but I’m not, nor have I ever been, ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word. If you’re a buddhist and what I say upsets you I don’t really care. I’m not trying to upset people just stating what I know and what I’ve experienced.

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists. — baker

Why? Is Elvis supernatural? If people believe that I guess it would be theism in the broader sense of the term. Reincarnation is a supernatural idea not an objective proven fact - same goes for pantheism. Buddhism is categorised more as autotheism I believe but there are some who are buddhist that believe in gods (outside of buddhism), because in eastern traditions people have no real issue with a pick and mix style ‘religion’. It isn’t all that uncommon.

A monk I met in Thailand (who was running the pagoda) had friends (fellow monks) who were both muslim and buddhist, and knew of others who were hindu, buddhist and christian.
Note: These were actual full time monks not merely ‘people in the street’.

There are also people who follow christian beliefs BUT don’t take the literally (as mentioned). They are more or less agnostic rather than theistic, and don’t hold to any of the idea of an afterlife but merely say they don’t dismiss as they don’t know (but I would still call Christianity a theism).

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.
— baker

Why? Is Elvis supernatural? — I like sushi

Elvis is god.

If you’re here just to act like a dick good for you. — I like sushi

It must be great to be you.

Nirvana is none existence. Question is are you ready for it ?

No, you're stereotyping Buddhism by depicting it in the only terms you know, which is 'theism', as understood by WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) culture. — Wayfarer

:up:

Nirvana has something to do with babies.

I assume you're buddhist too and don't like it when people say things that are true? Seems strange though.

You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'.

I assume you're buddhist too and don't like it when people say things that are true? Seems strange though.

You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'. — I like sushi

People seem to be under the impression that Buddhism is atheistic. It isn't - the entire Hindu pantheon is part of the Buddhist belief system - but what's unique to Gautama's religion is no god(s) is/are the supreme authority like in the Abrahamic triad. This seemingly small alteration in the status of god(s) makes a huge difference presumably. Wayfarer is probably alluding to this, what is a, recalibration of our relationship with god(s). More can be said I suppose.

The problem with our understanding of nirvana and matters nirvana-like is that it can only described using metaphors and metaphors, I've come to know, are open to multiple interpretations. Each person understands a metaphor under consideration in his own way - Rorschach inkblot tests! - and that, my little brain tells me, is a recipe for confusion & misunderstanding.

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'. — I like sushi

Hence, Elvis is god, and Elvis fans are theists ...

It's possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

It is true, nirvana, you have to know, from scriptions, it is none existense.
It Means, you done everything as "Leaving", ego and you go to ultimate expensions.

(in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism. — Google, aka the CyberGod

This goal, by hypothesis, or by dogma, was attained by Gautama Buddha after meditating under a fig tree. One must therefore surmise that it is a human condition, and primarily a state of mind. Judging by the replies so far, we have not been graced with one who has attained this state, and I, of course am proudly not the exception.

So any attempt to answer the op's question is as theoretical as this one, and not based on experience. So there is a jolly little game that goes on of calling each other out over various issues and expertises about stuff that bears some relation to what none of us knows from experience. But it sure sounds like a lot of fun.

So any attempt to answer the op's question is as theoretical as this one, and not based on experience. So there is a jolly little game that goes on of calling each other out over various issues and expertises about stuff that bears some relation to what none of us knows from experience. — unenlightened

In religious doctrines, terms have definitions.

Some people have been trying to bypass those definitions, and insist on using terms in idiosyncratic ways. What use is doing that?

In religious doctrines, terms have definitions. — baker

Think you may find that religions argue about definitions all the time and have schisms over them on a regular basis. Philosophers are somewhat inclined to do the same. But what is your beef? I quoted the cybergod definition and observed that it is a real thing but extremely rare. If the op wanted a doctrinal definition, a buddhist website would be the place to go for no doubt several lengthy ones. But I suspect he wanted an account. He's not going to get that either. Meanwhile, lighten up dude, I'm not trying to steal your throne.

Think you may find that religions argue about definitions all the time and have schisms over them on a regular basis. Philosophers are somewhat inclined to do the same. — unenlightened

Unless we have all been teleported to Humpty Dumpty Land, one still cannot make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.
Conceptual clarification is one of the main purposes of philosophy.

If the op wanted a doctrinal definition, a buddhist website would be the place to go for no doubt several lengthy ones.

From what I've seen, even self-identified Buddhists often can't find their way around Buddhist scriptures and other Buddhist sources. Some self-identified Buddhists also flat out ridicule the foundational Buddhist scriptures and consider them irrelevant. What to speak of non-Buddhists and their knowledge of Buddhism.
I asked the OP about his sources for his knowledge on the topic of Buddhism. From his answer to this, it is clear to me whence his OP.

But what is your beef?

I want to know whether the Buddha was sourgraping, so I question everyone who claims or implies that he was.

Meanwhile, lighten up dude, I'm not trying to steal your throne.

Oh, I have a throne that I don't know of?

I want to know whether the Buddha was sourgraping, so I question everyone who claims or implies that he was. — baker

Firstly, wrong thread, and secondly, nothing I have said is sceptical of Buddhism or its founder. I am sceptical of much of the Western interpretation of Buddhism, and perhaps of the beliefs of some Buddhists that have a supernatural or magical turn. I lean more towards the Zen schools and a practical, psychological understanding of an end to the narrative self as a projection from memory to imagination, or past to future, a thought construction of the self that creates desire and suffering.

I lean more towards the Zen schools and a practical, psychological understanding of an end to the narrative self as a projection from memory to imagination, or past to future, a thought construction of the self that creates desire and suffering. — unenlightened

:up: Once upon a wanton youth ... now day to day, moment by moment, as best as I can (my mandala) :death: :flower:

@Gregory

I (understand) 'nirvana' as the irreversible cessation of suffering (and joy), the release from "rebirth" – from distinctions, dualities, multiplicity, cycles and from release itself; and whereas 'nirvana' supposedly is the final consequence of following the Noble Eightfold Path, etc, it is not, however, "the goal" (since it's the cessation of goal-seeking). A meta-psychological (non-religious) corollary is, I think, Freddy's supposition of the Eternal Recurrence where 'the cycle' (of all binary opposites) is affirmed to such a degree that 'the cycle' becomes transparent – disappears – and loses its vice-grip on – releases – one's psyche. Another variation: Camus' "Sisyphus" overcomes – moment by moment releases himself from – 'the Absurd' by affirming, without evasions from or succumbing to, 'the Absurd'.

So Buddhism has gods but no Supreme God we are trying to get too. Nirvana itself could seem to be atheistic to a Westerner looking for loving union with his creator. It's interesting that all cultures seem to have gods but they don't all have God

I think nontheistic (i.e. "devotion (attachment) to deities" is irrelevant for – perhaps even hinders – 'moksha') best describes Buddhism.

As I understand Buddhism, the ego is what causes suffering for the reason that suffering means something is claiming identity in the face of sensations. So if the ego dies a consciousness would feel everything there is and there will be a cancelling of good and bad which results in a state of bliss. If the body dies, consciousness can live on because it is nothing without an ego. But how can a state beyond the world be? — Gregory

That is funny you say that because I been recently researching scripture of the Bible. And it relates to the same idea in Genesis

Genesis 2-17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Most people confuse this to knowledge of Science but in reality it talks of the awareness of ego. Shame, guilt and the primordial subconscious of the human psyche. And how it will be the cause of suffering in the world.

In Buddhism it talks about escaping this ego when you enter into Nirvana. In Christianity it says a savior will free us from that but we describe it as Sin.

I’m sorry I just find it fascinating how certain philosophy and belief intersect sometimes. Just noting the similarities.

Interesting comment. Nirvana is not knowing good and evil but transcending all duality