tiltbillings wrote:Being fond of precision is a good thing and good practice.
Yes, yet it is not claiming to be precise.
As I said, I am not doing what Batchelor is doing. Is this supposed to be guilt by association?
no, but the point was the application of atheism within a "religion," as you are using, has a history of use.
so where you are coming up with the limited use to refer to an outside religion, a use which is already a tenet within Buddhism so no extra definition is needed in that regard, and as a you showed there is an equivalent to the term atheism within the prakrit languages, which the Buddha and early disciples never had a need to apply to the Dhamma-vinaya I do not understand how you are coming to the conclusion that it is an appropriate term.
The Hindu word I used was a later Sanskrit word, not prakrit, but if a later Sanskrit word is not appropriate, why would a considerably later English locution, non-theistic, be appropriate?
Prakrit is a language family which sanskrit & pali are part.
There may well of been the term before this reference, or it may be more than just one word? I would be interested to know what word/s are used if you are aware!
however I do not know, nor find any identical pali term in the dictionary I have, there are schools known about within the canon who may well of been atheistic such as the Materialists; sceptics, and annihilists all could of had some form of atheistic teaching whether broad or narrow in meaning.
Non-theism as opposed to atheism is used as a umbrella term, there are non-theistic religions, such as the christian atheists, or some of them at least, and Unitarian Universalism - which isn't specifically atheistic or theistic in any sense of the word - would fall into the non-theistic umbrella, just as deists, or pandeists can. so because it doesn't exclude such interpretations, yet excludes the theistic centrality of god to the path it is a far more appropriate term, compared with Atheism which excludes gods entirely, as previously noted with the meaning and lack of use as an umbrella term, it is also only partly correct (only the narrow creator denial) that Buddhism is atheistic.
[EDIT= this would also be allong the lines of "samana" "materialists" "sceptics" & "annihalists" as umbrella terms, as not all areas of each individuals teachings would of been mutually compatible or the same.]
To me it seams like the claim that the Buddha teaches in-action, and in a way he does, but that isn't the whole story.
If you can not understand that don't bother replying!
What you are saying in the preceeding sentence is a bit cryptic. Precision is good and clarity is even better.[/quote]
There is a sutta (AN8.12 page 201 of the anothology of the AN by Bodhi & Nyanaponika & one which looks more complete on this page
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; second one down) where the BUddha is asked about the hearsay claim he teaches inaction, and he says there is a way that it could be said he teaches inaction, and a way it could be said he teaches action. to say he teaches inaction would be incorrect, and the same is true here, in a way it can be said that buddhism in atheistic yet also a way it could be called theistic, which was the initial "problem".
I am reminded of (I think in this thread) the short Q&A regarding use of god, god does not have to mean a being and can substitute for Dhamma for an individual understanding, yet, it is easily confusing for others who do not have the kind of being as a understanding.