Theism, Atheism, Painting and God

[RichardH]

Ok. I'd just like to continue the conversation, and start by talking as a painter.

I'll start by addressing Daitetsu's assertion that the "default state" of a newborn is to be an atheist.
Atheism is a view dependent on the view of Theism. The "default state" is not a view of God, or a view of no God. No view of a presence, No view of an absence. This "default state" of no view is also just sitting. If I am an Atheist or Theist while sitting, then something is off. Even when engaging in views and taking an atheistic position, or a view of God, that "default state" of no-view is the heart.


With that in mind...here is a God view, a way of seeing things ...maybe it could be called God is a painted Rice Cake?

The experience of boundless, spontaneous, intelligence comes quite naturally in Creative practice. When there is serious sustained focus on the creative process, it involves letting go completely into this intelligence. It is a total surrender to the process. "I" cannot do it. When there is full creative flight, there is a self-same perfection that is all-pervasive. Self-same perfection is the life of the artistic eye. It is the eye of absolute beauty and perfection of the whole universe as it is. There is vast spontaneous intelligence and an underlying quality of fierce peace. There is also a clear sense of diamond hard space, space that is indestructible, in which everything that manifests is alive and vivid, radiant and transparent. It is the field in which we "live and move and have our being"... call it God, Self, Buddha, Life or whatever. It is also empty, an experience... and should not be clung too. This is one way that it is possible to play in the field of God, Love God, and let it go. No problem.

I know other painters who experience this field of creativity, and some who don't... and of course it isn't limited to Artists, it can be tasted when many kinds of creativity are practice with passion and commitment.

Thanks

Gassho
Daizan

[Risho]

It does not matter whether one is a non-believer, because one has no concept of God or because of a consious decision - both cases are Atheism.

If the baby never learns how to drive a car and thus never makes the driver's license she will never drive a car for the rest of her life - whether with 1 year, 15 years, or 21 years.
If the baby is not indoctrinated or actively influenced, chances are high that she'll stay a non-believer. And the older she gets the more likely she won't adopt a belief. Such a scenario is highly unlikely in the US, where you cannot escape religion, but if you take certain Scandinavian countries, not believing in a god is more or less the norm.
Here in Germany I know lots of people who were raised a-religious (careful, I don't mean anti-religious!). Most of them stayed non-believers for the rest of their lives - just because their parents did not care about whether they believe or not.

So the default state is IMHO that which is the case when we come to this earth and requires something to happen in order to change.


Babies might not be atheists according to your definition of atheism. But that's the "problem" - people define things differently.
I don't presuppose a concious decision for being an atheist (although in lots of cases there is a conscious decision). An Atheist in my book (and according to the majority of most Atheists I know) is simply someone who does not believe in a personal god - which is not dependent on the fact that it was a conscious decision (e.g. a Christian who does not believe anymore) or not (someone who grew up in a neutral environment and never developed a belief).

We would also have to define what we mean by "god". This requires characteristics/attributes, otherwise the term "god" would not make sense.
If you take Brad Warner's definition - then yeah, you can call me a believer!
If you talk about a god who had a son of flesh and blood that came to our planet, born by a woman that was still a virgin at his birth, then call me an Atheist.
The same holds true for Thor, Zeus, Osiris, etc.

Anyway, we are running in circles.

As Hans suggested we should split this thread.

Before I bow out of the discussion, I'd like to recommend these two short posts:
http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/04/what-is-atheism.html
and
http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/al...-atheists.html

Just a short disclaimer: I don't know any of the other posts on that page, so what you'll find there won't necessarily be shared by me. I found those two posts helpful though.

@Hans:
Sorry for that discussion - I will read Harris' book, thanks for the recommendation.


Gassho,

Daitetsu

Daitetsu, I'm putting your post here because I think it's important and I have to respond.

I'm more akin to that idea of God presented in Brad's book as well, but my thoughts about it are constantly evolving and changing. I don't believe in a judgmental God up high who smites his enemies, etc. I also take the Jesus stories with a grain of salt. To steal a Jundo word, I think it is a hagiography. But still the message contained is beautiful. I also have no problem with evolution or reality. I think a lot of the stories in the Bible are myths.. That's my personal opinion.

But keep in mind, there was no concept of historical documentation like we have now when the Bible was written. There was no scientific method, so reality or accuracy didn't mean as much as conveying a message to people. I don't believe the universe was created in 7 days.

Side note: a really interesting read is Zealot. It's about the history of Jesus of Nazareth. I find it simply fascinating.

When this whole discussion started I said my beliefs are not traditional, so I'm probably a heretic to a lot of people. But I do believe in God. I don't believe in some Zeus-like God like I said, but I also look at this universe and find it simply incredible all of the intricacy.. things in the right place and time to support life and consciousness.

Where did it come from?

Maybe some Zen masters would answer "Go wash your bowls." That's partly why I love Zen because we have to live here and now and although those clouds are fascinating, we have to live now even if now is a dream we call reality. But I'm a human being, and I love to know... It's just an instinctual driver in my life. Will I ever know? Who knows? But man it's interesting. And I won't just drop anything. I think we are explorers and we should find out what we can where we live.

If you ever watched Cosmos... wow what a show. I love how when you think about the Big Bang Theory and that it all started as a marble. But how could that be? What is outside of the marble? Even the outside of the marble must be included in the Universe, right?

Anyway, that's sort of the approach I take with God.. I don't know enough to start stating any traits or characteristics, to tell you that you are worthy of something or not.

Gassho,

Risho

P.S. If we do live in a universe among universes, in a multiverse, maybe there are pink unicorns. hahhaha

[Nindo]

Atheism is a view dependent on the view of Theism. The "default state" is not a view of God, or a view of no God. No view of a presence, No view of an absence. This "default state" of no view is also just sitting. If I am an Atheist or Theist while sitting, then something is off. Even when engaging in views and taking an atheistic position, or a view of God, that "default state" of no-view is the heart.

I'm with you on that.

About the rest of the discussion what atheism is or is not, I'd rather keep my mouth shut. Everybody seems to have a different definition. I'm a mathematician. If you don't agree on the definition, no need to talk.

The experience of boundless, spontaneous, intelligence comes quite naturally in Creative practice. When there is serious sustained focus on the creative process, it involves letting go completely into this intelligence. It is a total surrender to the process. "I" cannot do it. When there is full creative flight, there is a self-same perfection that is all-pervasive. Self-same perfection is the life of the artistic eye. It is the eye of absolute beauty and perfection of the whole universe as it is. There is vast spontaneous intelligence and an underlying quality of fierce peace. There is also a clear sense of diamond hard space, space that is indestructible, in which everything that manifests is alive and vivid, radiant and transparent. It is the field in which we "live and move and have our being"... call it God, Self, Buddha, Life or whatever. It is also empty, an experience... and should not be clung too. This is one way that it is possible to play in the field of God, Love God, and let it go. No problem.

Thank you for this presentation of the creative mind!

Gassho,
Nindo

[Daitetsu]

Hi there,

I'd like to quote Rich's last post from the other thread and hope that by my reply to it I can at least partially give you, Daizan and Risho, also an answer to your posts.

daitetsu, you just said that depending on how god is defined you are a believer or an atheist. What are you before anything is defined, believed or thought of?

This might sound unsatisfying, but I'd call it beyond belief or non-belief.
As soon as the mind sets in, definitions and thus separation come into play. As soon as thinking sets in, we have lost reality.
So in my posts in the other thread I wrote from a perspective of when thinking has set in already. Because as soon as we play "the game of definitions" all the rules of logic set in.
Brad Warner writes in his latest book:

Bill Maher said, “Atheism is a religion the same way abstinence is a sex position.” It’s just that some atheists are so damned evangelical about their nonreligion they might as well be ringing doorbells and handing out leaflets.

And I'd fully agree with this statement.

I'd also like to add two other quotes from Brad, which sum up my view of things pretty well:

If God is a big white man with a beard who sits on a throne up in the sky, then there is no God, as far as I’m concerned. The subtler notions of God are more difficult to refute. But if it ends up being just a matter of moving God farther and farther away to prevent us from finding out he doesn’t exist, then I still don’t believe in God.

However ...

All of us are expressions of the universe. Dogen talked about that when he said that we’re the eyes and ears it uses to experience the world.
[ ... ]
But God isn’t a guy just like us. He is, in fact, us. I know that loads of people get quite upset over the notion that we, ourselves, are God. This is because they have some very specific ideas of what God is, and obviously we are not like that.So what do I mean when I make this absurd assertion?I mean that the universe, that is, God, manifests in as many ways as it can. Infinite ways. Forever. We are all part of the whole of this infinity. We are each of us infinite. Not in some future afterlife — we are infinite right now.

@Daizan:
I'd like to thank you for sharing your creative view on things.
I am not an artist, however, I can talk from "experiences".
And now it is getting a bit awkward for me, as I find this quite personal and actually I don't like to talk about it.
I would like to avoid those typical Zen terms, so I prefer to use Jundo's expression of "peak experience".
I am not talking of a category that left me lying drooling on the floor for days (as you find so often in Zen literature), but still...
Let's say it was like having several glimpses through a door slit - but before that I had not even known there is a wall at all.
I am sorry I have to use metaphors here...
What I can say from this is, that it was like finding something that I had forgotten, and it was both ordinary and extraordinary at the same time.
And now the decisive part: I would not use words like "intelligence". The only thing I can say is: "I don't know."
And I will never know. And I don't need to know. There is just this.
And my hunger for knowing dissolved - not because I have a certain answer, but because it is somewhat unimportant. Things are as IT is.
This probably sounds quite silly/foolish/cryptic...

Would I call this God? No - for the simple reason, because God has so many associations already in our culture. And that's the point where I disagree with Brad Warner - IMHO using this terminology causes more confusion.

@Risho:
Thanks for your explanations. I guess we might have closer views than it may appear. We use different terminology though.
I guess according to Daizan I'd be a Non-Theist. A traditional Christian might call me an Atheist. An Atheist might call me an Agnostic or probably just nuts.
The good thing is - it's not important at all.
If someone presses me for definitions though, I come up with those I have described in this thread and the other one about Sam Harris.


BTW: I have not read anything from Sam Harris yet, will do it in the future though.

Sorry for getting lengthy and maybe even boring.
I hope I could clear a few things up, but I fear I've caused even more confusion...

I'd like to end with a quote from Albert Einstein:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

Gassho,

Daitetsu

[Kyonin]

Hi guys.

I think we are stretching the atheist concept too far and we are looking for deeper philosophical meanings.

Atheist comes the Greek.

A - no

Theos - god

No gods. Simple. Gods are not even an issue for life. We move through life without the need of a supernatural being.

I don't even think about gods until someone comes with the topic.

That's all.

No gods are needed to be compassionate, creative, hard working, patriot, good parent or a nice and fun clown.

Gods are irrelevant.

Or it could be I'm just too small to understand.

Gassho,

Kyonin

[Rich]

Daitetsu, thanks for explaining all that.

Kind regards. /\

[Rich]

Daizan, thanks for your excellent description of the creative process. One of the things that sitting has helped with in this fast moving world is the development of patience to act at the right time.

Kind regards. /\

[Jundo]

I sometimes feel that the endless possibilities for creation of a clear, white, open canvas waiting for painting is closest to my vision of "God" or "Buddha" of the "universe" or whatever you wanna call such.

And, no less, I feel that the possibilities and the paint and the painter who create on the canvas ... and the resulting paintings too ... are also "God" or "Buddha" of the "universe" or whatever you wanna call such.

I once said this in a little talk on Karma ...

All time and space and history painted us into this painting of a world ... and thus we were born as part of its scene, part of this world. Now, alive, we find ourselves with brush in hand ... ready to continue the making of the total composition ongoing from this point forward ... a painted being in a picture, and a being painting the picture, all just the painting all along. Maybe we cannot change the vast, total composition as just one person (the world is a big and complicated place), but we can change so much ... repaint the ugly into something balanced, beautiful, serene. The brushstrokes of our actions, Karma, will be seen far into the future.

...

What is more, the Vast, Powerful composition ... filled with happy faces and crying faces, images of peace and of war, growth and death, majestic mountains and scrawled graffiti on city walls ... is embraced for Totality, rejecting none of it. All painted right in, making the Whole.

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...DO-MASTERPEACE

May we all paint a good one today!

Gassho, J

[Joyo]

Hi guys.

I think we are stretching the atheist concept too far and we are looking for deeper philosophical meanings.

Atheist comes the Greek.

A - no

Theos - god

No gods. Simple. Gods are not even an issue for life. We move through life without the need of a supernatural being.

I don't even think about gods until someone comes with the topic.

That's all.

No gods are needed to be compassionate, creative, hard working, patriot, good parent or a nice and fun clown.

Gods are irrelevant.

Or it could be I'm just too small to understand.

Gassho,

Kyonin

I have to agree with Kyonin on this one. I spent a lot of time and energy, after leaving Christianity, trying to figure out if I am an atheist/deist/agnostic or what the heck, so confusing. Now, I just look at the universe with awe and respect, practice Zen and it's just enough for me.

Gassho,
Joyo

[Kokuu]

No gods are needed to be compassionate, creative, hard working, patriot, good parent or a nice and fun clown.

Gods are irrelevant.

We may not need them but I like to include all beings in my practice whether winged, green-leafed, eight-legged, six-legged, four-footed or divine.

I have been brought up with the notion of Gods as powerful but flawed, likewise spirits of trees, rivers and mountains. To them, as all beings, I offer the meagre fruits of my practice.

No sutras or sangha are needed to be a good and kind people either but many people like the support of them. Likewise belief in deities (whether true or not) inspires many to be better people.

When sitting, though, it all falls away and we become empty bowls open to the wonder that is life without words or names. In life, carry your beliefs lightly, and respect those of others. Gods may be irrelevant for you but that does not mean that is the same for the person sitting next to you.

Gassho
Kokuu

[Byokan]

We may not need them but I like to include all beings in my practice whether winged, green-leafed, eight-legged, six-legged, four-footed or divine.

I have been brought up with the notion of Gods as powerful but flawed, likewise spirits of trees, rivers and mountains. To them, as all beings, I offer the meagre fruits of my practice.

No sutras or sangha are needed to be a good and kind people either but many people like the support of them. Likewise belief in deities (whether true or not) inspires many to be better people.

When sitting, though, it all falls away and we become empty bowls open to the wonder that is life without words or names. In life, carry your beliefs lightly, and respect those of others. Gods may be irrelevant for you but that does not mean that is the same for the person sitting next to you.

Gassho
Kokuu

Gassho
Lisa

[Joyo]

When sitting, though, it all falls away and we become empty bowls open to the wonder that is life without words or names. In life, carry your beliefs lightly, and respect those of others. Gods may be irrelevant for you but that does not mean that is the same for the person sitting next to you.

Gassho
Kokuu

That is beautiful, Kokuu and so true. One thing I really appreciate about Treeleaf is the diversity in beliefs about god(s) and yet we all have respect and practice together. It's a wonderful way to learn and grow.

Gassho,
Joyo

[Meikyo]

Hi.

Once again I stand with Kyonin in what he wisely said above.

But furthermore I would like too add that I don't think this Zen forum is the right place discuss whether God exists or not or what is meant by various terms. Of course we all have our views that inform our Practice and that's natural. Correct God and the supernatural are of course somewhat related to Buddhism and thus to Zen. It is important to know where one stands as an individual and walker of the Way when it comes to these things. And what the general attitude of the community one has chosen to join is towards these questions in order to know if one feels at home. But we have already determined that for the purpose of the Practice that we do here the exact answers are of little consequence. One can go either way.

So I would argue that Treeleaf is not a place for these things. I didn't come here to sway someone over to my side of a very specific issue. It's even an essentially irrelevant issue to the topic of interest here in this space? We may be able to discuss such things in direct connection with Practice (when's that?) but when going into definitions and logic we are going off course I think.

If you have been following what I have written in the past you'll know that DO very much care about these question and also maybe what I think. Move the discussion into a forum more suited for it and not one mainly reserved for something else that can go on regardless (here it's Zen...I wouldn't on talk God/ no god on a astronomy or car forum either.) and I will be happy to discuss.

I hope you can see past my clumsy gruffness and instead see what I'm trying to convey.

Gassho
Aske

[Kyonin]

When sitting, though, it all falls away and we become empty bowls open to the wonder that is life without words or names. In life, carry your beliefs lightly, and respect those of others. Gods may be irrelevant for you but that does not mean that is the same for the person sitting next to you.

Exactly! That's what I meant

Gassho,

Kyonin

[jeff_u]

Wow, this is a pretty intense thread. Thank you everyone for sharing your perspectives and deep beliefs.


I used to fall in the hard-liner atheist camp--thinking that belief in God was a sign of cognitive deficiency. I liked the battle and feeling of winning debates, the sense of being right. I still love philosophy and logical discourse, but I've learned to be very suspicious of my own monopoly on the truth. One principle that has really helped me open up and learn from others has been Anekantavada, that people from their relative point of view see (or are expressions of) the world truthfully.


I think there is a validity to everyone's perspectives--no matter how crazy or ill-informed they may seem from our point of view. From each of our relative positions in world Truth emerges. We are all expressions of the universe, the Absolute. As such, our thoughts, language, writings, creations, are also inseparable expressions of that Absolute. Thus in a very real way we all express ourselves as Truth. Even our so-called "false" positions and fantasies are part of this fabric. That idea you have of a pink unicorn is True. Claiming yourself to be atheist, Christian, Buddhist, agnostic, or a reincarnation of Napolean all equally ring True. Each of us as a point-of-view for the universe sees the world Truthfully given our position, there is no way to be False.


That being said, does this mean that we can go out into the world and find a pink unicorn? No (or more precisely, probably not). While the terrorist that calls for murder of innocent people is an equally True expression of Truth to our own, we should still try to prevent violence and suffering. While there are no False ideas, the false idea that walking into oncoming traffic is okay will not get you very far in this life and should probably be discarded.


As a mathematician I've spent a lot of time "proving" things. Separating true theorems from false contradictions and non-sense. Yet all that work, the right and the wrong, was an expression of the Truth--hewing the rocks of true and false out of the quarry of Truth.


When we use our discriminating mind there will atheists and and theists, unicorns and Zen Buddhists. When we sit in Zazen and the body-mind drops away, there is only the Truth.


I hope I'm not coming off too wishy-washy or unskilled, and I still love debates and discussions like the one in this thread. I hope this makes sense.


Gassho,
-Jeff

[RichardH]

Thank you for these responses. Yes Kyonin... the Greek word is Theos. But I would suggest the opposite, that it is superficially looked into, and seldom looked into experientially, directly.

Also, regarding the assertion someone made that this is not the right place to discuss this... nonsense, The Buddha discussed such matters exhaustively, and had no aversion to the sacred. His use , for instance, of "Divine Abodes" (Brahma Viharas) to describe attributes universally regarded as Divine in other contemplative traditions, is typical. This Idea of The Highest value of the Heart, as Divine , is a powerful practice.

For years I was leading Sunday public practice for a Theravadin Sangha, and it was amazing how many people showed up with aversions to "religion".... They could hear Buddhist teachings on The Deathless, The Unconditioned , Absolute, True Self, all the while saying Buddhism was ok because it didn't have the "G" word. Odd that. Certainly the devotional side of Buddhist practice made people squirrely.

Anyway, it is ironic that this topic is being pushed by me, because I have always been wary of "positive" Zen terms like "True Self" and talk of No Birth and No Death, because they might encouraged attachment to subtle ideation and absolutism. I felt that talking about "cessation of Dukkha" was more skillful and closer to the original way of the Buddha. So something has changed big time for me. Something gave way. It's good.

Thanks again

Gassho
Daizan

[Jundo]

Sometimes I call All Reality as Stanley.

Gassho, J

[Byokan]

I'm guessing sometimes Stanley refers to All Reality as Jundo

Gassho
Lisa

[jeff_u]

Sometimes I call All Reality as Stanley.

I think there is a validity to everyone's perspectives--no matter how crazy or ill-informed they may seem from our point of view. From each of our relative positions in the world Stanley emerges. We are all expressions of the Stanley, the One-And-Only Stanley. As such, our thoughts, language, writings, creations, are also inseparable expressions of Stanley. Thus in a very real way we all express ourselves as Stanley. Even our so-called "false" positions and fantasies are part of this guy. That idea you have of a pink unicorn is Stanley-ish. Claiming yourself to be atheist, Christian, Buddhist, agnostic, or a reincarnation of Napoleon all equally ring of Stanley. Each of us as a point-of-view within Stanley sees the world Stanley-i-fied given our position, there is no way to be Not Be Stanley.

Gassho,
-Jeff

[Mp]

Oh Stanley! =)

Gassho
Shingen

[Myosha]

Hello,

As a recovering Catholic I believe we non-believers should practice al fresco; God willing.


Gassho,
Myosha

[RichardH]

Hello,

As a recovering Catholic I believe we non-believers should practice al fresco; God willing.


Gassho,
Myosha

As a recovering Anglican, Jewish, Theosophist, Advaitist, Atheist, Theist , magic mushroom taster, I couldn't agree more.

Gassho
Dazian

[Hans]

Hello,

"al fresco" is a great way of putting it

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[Diarmuid1]

from Daitetsu:
I have to disagree here.
According to that logic, non-skiing would be sports, non-smoking an addiction, and abstinence a sex position.
According to that logic, if I said I believe in pink unicorns, that would make you automatically a believer as well (i.e. someone believing there are no pink unicorns).
People could claim all sorts of weird things and say that you are equally just believing (namely the opposite).
Atheism is a lack of belief though.
So it makes more sense to say that Atheism is a non-belief.

Is non-skiing the same as non-skiing-ism?
Is non-smoking the same as non-smoking-ism?

Although you say that you are using the same logic, I think you may be mistaken?

If I define myself as an apinkunicornist, you would be right to label me as a believer in the non-existence of pink unicorns. Atheism is the sure-fire belief that there is no god. Do you still think otherwise?

[delphizealot]

I'm personally inclined to disbelieve in fire-breathing purple monkeys, but perhaps then I'm liable to get burned. The funny thing about belief and disbelief is the process of formation that occurs in either case when the narrative of (dis)believing is examined. Various conceptions arise for what I believe or disbelieve and these conceptions come armed with the same barbs as all the myriad conditioned things. This process is natural and creative, though every act of creation comes preloaded with the seeds of its own dissolution/disillusion. If even God cannot survive Creation, how can I?

This is how it seems to me. There is refuge in the uncreated, encompassing the transient strokes of every picture ever painted. The tragedy (and the joy) of the artist is there there is actually nothing whatsoever to create.

[Daitetsu]

If I define myself as an apinkunicornist, you would be right to label me as a believer in the non-existence of pink unicorns.

No, I wouldn't, that would be quite absurd.
If I say there is a pink unicorn, then I have the burden of proof. Nobody has to justify their non-belief in a pink unicorn.
Likewise when somebody claims there is God then the burden of proof is with them. Calling the other party who simply does not believe in unverified claims a believer, is illogical.

Atheism is the sure-fire belief that there is no god. Do you still think otherwise?

You obviously define Atheism differently than most Atheists do.
Most Atheists don't say "There is no God, period." (there are some, of course, but they are a minority), but more like "I have no reason to believe in a God."
Here an interesting Wikipedia link which might help you understand it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof

Quote:
the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".

Most Atheists tend to the first statement. Your reasoning would be correct if it were the latter.

Anyway, we've had all this already in the other thread, it is a bit cumbersome to repeat everything again...

Cheers,

Daitetsu

[Ansan]

Before I sit in Zazen, I usually read from a book on Buddhism, chosen from Jundo's suggested reading list. Today, I was hit by a thunderbolt as I continued reading Brad Warner's book "Sit Down & Shut Up" and began the chapter on God. In it, he says "...every decent Zen teacher I have ever encountered does believe in God." p 186. I finished the chapter and had more questions than answers.

Throughout my long life, I have wallowed through the usual experiences of believing in a Supreme Being. I was born as a Catholic and trained in its dogmas throughout my schooling. I was acclimated to my isolated religiosity but in my years at a University, my discovery of other religions made me realize and appreciate the validity of all other belief systems in some forms. Even those with multiple deities. Eventually, I lost faith in a god but it stimulated my gravitation toward myths and folk tales. This led then to the realm of fantasy and creativity of thought. I discovered Joseph Campbell, Clarissa Pinkola Estes and other Jungian scholars. Even though my belief in a god had diminished and disappeared throughout the years, I refused the word "atheist" because it connotes militancy. When asked for a religious preference, I usually answered "non-theist." I could have said "none" but that accounts for nothing because there is "something" that I need to clarify.

The word "decent" in Brad's comment is the one that stunned me, because it insinuates those who do not believe in God are indecent. I guess my first thought was "does Zen 'require' a belief in God?" As I sat in turmoil, I realized that in all my readings on Zen (and I admit I am not very educated in that regard) that I had never encountered that prerequisite. I turned to TreeLeaf and found this thread. It addresses my concerns and opens many avenues of thought and even answers. Thank you for such intelligence and introspection.

Is there an available previous thread as indicated by some of the comments? Is anybody familiar with the Jataka Tales?

Gassho,
Ansan

SatToday

[Jundo]

Before I sit in Zazen, I usually read from a book on Buddhism, chosen from Jundo's suggested reading list. Today, I was hit by a thunderbolt as I continued reading Brad Warner's book "Sit Down & Shut Up" and began the chapter on God. In it, he says "...every decent Zen teacher I have ever encountered does believe in God." p 186. I finished the chapter and had more questions than answers.

Yes, well, in a later book Bro. Brad goes on to define (can one define?) "God" so broadly, that it would be hard for anyone not to believe in God in some way ... even many solid athiests.



I like this one just because of the space bunny ...



Sometimes Brad says stuff without it really being so deep and well expressed, and without much real familiarity with Buddhist/Zen history.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Ansan]

Yes, well, in a later book Bro. Brad goes on to define (can one define?) "God" so broadly, that it would be hard for anyone not to believe in God in some way ... even many solid athiests.

Sometimes Brad says stuff without it really being so deep and well expressed, and without much real familiarity with Buddhist/Zen history.

Gassho, J

SatToday

Thank you, Jundo. I watched the videos (Has Brad met Marvin the Martian??) and then went on to read the next chapter "It! The Thing from Beyond the Realm of Mind". It is similar to his discussion on the video. Why is "It" called "God" a word that has a gender and carries a lot of baggage, such as prolific smoting. The word "It" seems more encompassing and non-definable. Brad quotes Ungo Doyo (Yunju Dauying?) from Shobogenzo: "If you want to attain to the matter which is it, you must be a person who is it. Already being a person who is it, why worry about the matter which it is?" I have much to learn. My one and only contention is Brad's usage of the phrase "every decent Zen teacher...does believe in God." I am not a Zen teacher but am I indecent if I don't believe, not saying that I don't or even do, and may not even know? The word "indecent" implies impropriety and I can't accept that. But then again, I am not a Zen teacher. So there. I am not going to worry about it. Not withstanding that picky comment, I am enjoying and learning a great deal from Brad and am grateful for his teachings.

Gassho
Ansan

SatToday