Are Zen and Advaita Vedanta atheist?

[Nak Khid]

 

Adyashanti
Swami Avdheshanand
Martin Ball
Dali Lama ( current Tenzin Gyatso)
Jeff Foster
Leo Gura
Thích Nhất Hạnh
Sam Harris
Bentinho Massaro
Jed McKenna
Mooji
Peter Ralston
Ramaji 
Sadhguru
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Shinzen
 Shunyamurti
Rupert Spira
Eckhart Tolle

 I'm looking at this list and it brings some questions to mind.

I'm going to code it with letters, if anybody feels like doing it , copy the list and put the appropriate letters on the name 

First, each name select  one letter from  A, B, C, or D

A)  you consider them a teaching mainly nondualism
B) you consider them a teaching some nondualism but a lot of others things not nondualism 
C)  they say they are not a nondualist when asked
D) claims to be a nondualist but you think they aren't 
___________________________________________
and then go back and add a second letter to each name E,F,G or H

E)  The frequently talk about God 
F)  They  mention God but rarely 
G) They almost never talk about God
H)  They say they are an atheist 

______________________________________________
So each name gets a letter, one about nondualism and another about how much they talk about God or don't

This is not a test it's mainly a subjective thing.  Some people may be more informed than me on some of these teachers 
I think the interesting thing about this is many of these teachers may teach some similar things but each one has a distinctive personality and way of speaking. 

People may ask "but how do you define________"  . Don't worry about that define terms in your own way 
 

[roopepa]

God, Self, Dao, Brahman, The Absolute... they all mean the same thing. God/Self/Dao/Brahman/Absolute is what Buddha found.

Traditions don't mean shit. Go within. You are thinking nonsense.

 

 

[Nak Khid]

6 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Go within. 

Don't tell me what to do please. I

Quote

 You are thinking nonsense

Condescension is not going to do anything positive 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Nak Khid

[roopepa]

31 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Don't tell me what to do please.

I am just trying to save your time. What you are thinking here is only holding you back.

20 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Condescension is not going to do anything positive 

I was stating a fact. What you are talking here is literally nonsense.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'll leave then.

[legendary]

12 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Another thing I noticed is that he equated atheists to leftists 

That's because he's from India.

[Nak Khid]

9 minutes ago, legendary said:

That's because he's from India.

I know a little about Hindu nationalism but if you are more informed about how this relate to India let us know. 

Muslims are big on God so I don't see the remark relating to them.  It sounded to me like a remark that somebody might make the same way in America, the idea that leftists, a lot of them are probably atheist, that is the assumption.   
How much does Sadhguru like Prime Minister Modi? 

Some people speculate that Sadhguru might try to run for political office 
How similar are Indian "leftists" similar in India to American and European leftists? this is going off topic I don't want to get into it in too many posts so I won't post the video but Sadhguru has an interesting video called " Why Sadhguru Called Himself Far More Leftist Than Others?", in youtube  (it's sort of a trick title) 

[legendary]

5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Muslims are big on God so I don't see the remark relating to them. 

Muslims are pretty right-wing.

5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

the idea that leftists, a lot of them are probably atheist, that is the assumption.

I would say the other way round. He thinks that atheists, in general, are leftists. 

5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

How much does Sadhguru like Prime Minister Modi? 

Publically they get along quite well. He's a spiral wizard. A lot of ministers attend his special events. He has a way of connecting with people from all walks of life.

5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Some people speculate that Sadhguru might try to run for political office 

No idea.

5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

How similar are Indian "leftists" similar in India to American and European leftists?

I don't want to speak for others, but India is a very stage Blue society. Things like relationships before marriage, letting women work are considered progressive.

[Nak Khid]

5 minutes ago, legendary said:

I don't want to speak for others, but India is a very stage Blue society. Things like relationships before marriage, letting women work are considered progressive.

"leftist" ,   there is also the connotation of leaning toward socialist. Did you watch this on youtube : 
  " Why Sadhguru Called Himself Far More Leftist Than Others?"
 

[legendary]

30 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

  " Why Sadhguru Called Himself Far More Leftist Than Others?"

I just saw it. It's basically Sadhguru implying that he is a spiral wizard. He calls out the hypocrisy of the younger generation. I'm not sure which protests he was talking about.

[Mu_]

21 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

Zen and Advaita Vedanta may not be  self-proclaiming atheists but they are nondual traditions and some might consider them atheist by default.  Buddhism often does not address the question of if a god exists or not.   The traditions that are oriented toward God mention it frequently.  It is a focal point

   Tibetan Buddhism is more influenced by Hindu deities  but in the article I posted earlier these deities are discussed in terms of to what extent they are regarded as real beings  and to what extent they symbolize principles and to what extent syncretism with native pre-Buddhist Tibetan religion.
It is not known if  Buddha was exposed to "one God" monotheism or only the polytheism common to his locale 

Bhakti Hinduism on the other hand Bhakti refers to devotion, participation in and the love of a personal god or a representational god by a devotee.   

I welcome anyone who has further comment or information 

 

 

It may be impossible to answer your question since what you call Buddhism and Advaita can be taught or expressed slightly differently among each teacher (and the teachers recognition and depth of understanding influences their expression), even though they are all under the same banner of the name Buddhism, or Advaita.  If you ask then what the actual source of the first teacher said, then you still have yourself or the person your listening to translate the original source to you, so its still not clearly known if you got the meaning of what they meant, lol. 

Also the first person to reply to this thread mentioned something very interesting that I think is important to take into consideration in this question and something I've said as well before after learning more about Atheism.  There are Atheists that actively deny a "god" as though they know or believe this, and then there are those, although I think they are much fewer, that don't even have a belief in Gods and are not on some deeper subconscious level proving this to themselves or others, its just they don't consider reality in the form of having Gods, so there's not a rejectionist stance (does that make sense)?  Ones a belief that you could say is a active defense or action of ones ideas and the other is just a natural more relaxed way of "being" where God origination is not even considered or relatable to them inherently. 

The other side to this which is interesting is what is the God word in your question and in the places your asking about.  Actual Origin?  because I think of the top of my head, Advita and Buddhism both speak about or life/reality in such a way that they teach a student reasons/meanings/or absences of meanings to convey a "reason or Origin of happening" even if they don't phrase them with the God word.

One thing I've found worth contemplating is letting in the possibility that Origin or a Origin story, or the describing of first cause is actually just a human mental concept to describe how Reality works, and Reality may not work in the way Origin or First Cause or the way in which people think God or a God would work.  Like you could say all those that I listed, describe an idea that one understands as follows "Theres something happening now, so it must mean that there is Something that started or allowed for Now to exist, and thus one can seek an answer or be informed of one to answer within that paradigm of questioning"  Or expressions like just Is, is always in response to the question of Origin or a why, how, what, when, where....Not sure what exactly my point is, but its interesting none the less to ponder.....

Edited June 8, 2020 by Mu_

[Nak Khid]

Your comment is thoughtful.   Sometimes I feel that people use the word "God" (with it's capital G)  
to mean "revere this thing"  and I wonder if it hearkens back to a Christian upbringing in some cases even if they are using it in a Christian context.   -Although in some Hinduism it is invoked. I have heard some people say  Yogananda  sort of package his teachinsg to appeal to a Christain raised audience. For instance: 

Quote

“Self-realization is the knowing in all parts of body, mind, and soul that you are now in possession of the kingdom of God; that you do not have to pray that it come to you; that God’s omnipresence is your omnipresence; and that all that you need to do is improve your knowing.”
― Paramahansa Yogananda

"The kingdom of God" is used. 

Quote

“Be afraid of nothing. Hating none, giving love to all, feeling the love of God, seeing His presence in everyone, and having but one desire - for His constant presence in the temple of your consciousness - that is the way to live in this world.”
― Paramahansa Yogananda, In the Sanctuary of the Soul: A Guide to Effective

Here he says "his presence",  "his" is invoked 

You can read some of these statements and somebody with a Christian might relate to it. 

Then there is the is other idea out there "you are God".  I have another thread on this

Interestingly nobody replied to it. 

If "you are God"  is that different from saying "you are a person"  ?
Are people "God" ?  But you don't hear that.   Are dogs God ?  
Is an empty box of Cheerios God?   Is everything God or only living things? 
If "God" is a word meaning everything then why would somebody say "you are God"? 
People don't say "you are everything" because it is assumed yes, pick anything you want and it's part of "everything" 

So why the term "God"  
I believe the intent is "revere this thing".   

Interesting I make a thread "You are God"  and I also put in an interesting second post later of the sayings of Swami Vivekananda.
Nobody replies.   Yet when atheism is brought up some people come in and reply offended by the idea  

What about "the All" ?  what about "oneness" ?  what about nonduality? 
isn't this all "God" ? 
I would say the word "God" does not have to used to express that.   When you are in a Western country "God" has a strong connotation of Judeo-Christianity even if untended. 

What about saying "you are everything" or "we are part of a universal consciousness"   "be one with everything"  "energy" etc ? 

- because agreeing with that is not so easy to determine. People acknowledge that if they are on a football team that are part of team, by extension we are part of the universe.   Even an atheist could acknowledge parts and sum of parts. 
However when the word "God" is invoked there is an expectation, say "God" back or you are not part of the team,
and I am expected to write it with a capital "G" 

Reverence for a word.  Is doing that really nondual? 

Of course "nondualism" is another concept, another word.  But it doesn't have the same sense of authority,
that humble yourself quality 

 

[Mu_]

27 minutes ago, Nak Khid said:

Your comment is thoughtful.   Sometimes I feel that people use the word "God" (with it's capital G)  
to mean "revere this thing"  and I wonder if it hearkens back to a Christian upbringing in some cases even if they are using it in a Christian context.   -Although in some Hinduism it is invoked. I have heard some people say  Yogananda  sort of package his teachinsg to appeal to a Christain raised audience. For instance: 

"The kingdom of God" is used. 

Here he says "his presence",  "his" is invoked 

You can read some of these statements and somebody with a Christian might relate to it. 

Then there is the is other idea out there "you are God".  I have another thread on this

Interestingly nobody replied to it. 

If "you are God"  is that different from saying "you are a person"  ?
Are people "God" ?  But you don't hear that.   Are dogs God ?  
Is an empty box of Cheerios God?   Is everything God or only living things? 
If "God" is a word meaning everything then why would somebody say "you are God"? 
People don't say "you are everything" because it is assumed yes, pick anything you want and it's part of "everything" 

So why the term "God"  
I believe the intent is "revere this thing".   

Interesting I make a thread "You are God"  and I also put in an interesting second post later of the sayings of Swami Vivekananda.
Nobody replies.   Yet when atheism is brought up some people come in and reply offended by the idea  

What about "the All" ?  what about "oneness" ?  what about nonduality? 
isn't this all "God" ? 
I would say the word "God" does not have to used to express that.   When you are in a Western country "God" has a strong connotation of Judeo-Christianity even if untended. 

What about saying "you are everything" or "we are part of a universal consciousness"   "be one with everything"  "energy" etc ? 

- because agreeing with that is not so easy to determine. People acknowledge that if they are on a football team that are part of team, by extension we are part of the universe.   Even an atheist could acknowledge parts and sum of parts. 
However when the word "God" is invoked there is an expectation, say "God" back or you are not part of the team,
and I am expected to write it with a capital "G" 

Reverence for a word.  Is doing that really nondual? 

Of course "nondualism" is another concept, another word.  But it doesn't have the same sense of authority,
that humble yourself quality 

 

If your asking me a question I'm not sure what it is.  If just making some interesting connections and saying your thoughts, I say they are interesting and may serve you in your unfolding.  You make some good observations, even if they can't be proven within a scientific certainty.  Some how though, it seems as though your words are signs of someone confused and still trying to solve something, what is that exactly?  Are you trying to understand what IS, are you trying to figure out whats right so you can be on that side of the fence, or just curious and putting interesting connections together wether or not they line up with anything provable?

Edited June 9, 2020 by Mu_

[VeganAwake]

There isn't a mystery or mystical realm that needs discovery.

It's everything that appears...this is already the mystery....already the unknowable...

Not because it's Indescribable which it is...

Because the one describing it isn't real ?