Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-14-2002, 08:44 AM

Hello Everyone,

Buddhism has been presented as a religion which lacks any form of Theism, without a personal supreme God or any other god for that matter. Various atheists here have presented Buddhism as either pantheistic or atheistic, though I am perhaps conflating the presentation of the Eastern religions by these individuals as it is possible that Taoism was presented as pantheistic and all the atheists here agree that Buddhism is atheistic.

Those who look at websites written by Buddhists, they range from explicit advocacy of atheism to ambivalent atheism. I do not presume to contradict these Buddhists' descriptions of their own religion.

From the standpoint of atheism it seems a dangerous thing for them to identify a religion (Buddhism is universally regarded as a religion) so closely with atheism. If Buddhism's atheism is religious, perhaps these atheists have made a religion out of their own atheism.

Nonetheless, these considerations are not my primary concern. My acquaintance with Buddhism is directly derived from reading the ancient scriptures of that religion. Buddhism has a long and complicated history, including many sacred scriptures canonized by different branches of that religion.

The two branches of Buddhism are identified as the Hinayana and the Mahayana, of these two Mahayana Buddhism does accept the existence of the Absolute.

I think it worth noting the description of Buddha's viewpoint as contained in the Introduction of Chapter IX (Buddhism) of A Sourcebook of Indian Philosophy:

Quote:

The Buddha does not affirm a positive reality underlying the world of change, a self underlying the empirical series of mental happenings, and the positive character of nirvana. While he is not prepared to dogmatize on these issues, it would be improper to look upon him as a skeptic, or an agnostic, or an atheist. As he is deeply interested in the ethical remaking of man, as he feels that metaphysical disputations would take us away from the task of individual change, he keeps silent on the nature of the absolute reality, the self, and nirvana. But his silence is not a cloak for ignorance or skepticism. Whereof we cannot speak we must keep silent. This is the great tradition of the mysticism of the Upanishads.

Even atheists casually reading the above statements will notice some terminology which appears contrary to naturalism and scientific rationality. Buddhists view the Universe and reality very differently than all forms of western atheism. Among those differences which might be especially offensive to atheists is the concept of reincarnation.

I don't want to concentrate so much on these major differences between Buddhism and atheism. My primary interest is the treatment of the God-concept in Buddhism.

What then does Buddhism have to say about transcendental things? What does the Buddha have to say about God?

Noted in the quote above was the Buddha's unwillingness to answer these questions because they were a distraction from the ethical life. The scriptures of the Buddhists confirm this explanation:

Quote:

Questions Which Tend Not to Edification
(from the Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63):

"Accordingly, Malunkyaputta, bear always in mind what it is that I have not elucidated, and what it is that I have elucidated. ... I have not elucidated, Malunkyaputta, that the world is eternal; I have not elucidated that the world is not eternal; I have not elucidated that the world is finite; I have not elucidated that the world is infinite; I have not elucidated that the soul and body are identical; I have not elucidated that the soul is one thing and the body another; I have not elucidated that the saint exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death. And why, Malunkyaputta, have I not elucidated this? Because, Malunkyaputta, this profits not, nor has it do with the fundamentals of religion, nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, the supernatural faculties, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore I have not elucidated it.

"And what, Malunkyaputta, have I elucidated? Misery, Malunkyaputta, have I elucidatedl the origin of misery have I elucidated; and the path leading to the cessation of misery have I elucidated."
(Harvard Classics. 45: Sacred Writings 2. p. 667)

Now I don't imagine that the above principles of Buddhism are any solace to atheists. I suspect that if the atheists really comprehended what the Buddha said about life they would despair of their own life. The Buddha's observations regarding the universality of suffering and the path to escape this suffering seem to contradict the principles of your optimistic (?) atheism.

But if there is anyone here who would like to speak out on behalf of Buddhism, I invite you to do so. I must say that since I first encountered Buddhism I have had an intense interest in the message of the religion. I have read many of the Scriptures of Buddhism, and would be happy to discuss them with any of you. I am particularly devoted to The Dhammapada, I even quote it at times when involved in discussions and arguments with fellow Christians.

Now I will ask you: What does Buddhism mean to you as an atheist?

Do you suppose that Buddhism is actually compatible with your atheistic opinions?

Sincerely,

David Mathews
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1" target="_blank">David Mathews' Home Page</a>

Eudaimonist · 07-14-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Now I will ask you: What does Buddhism mean to you as an atheist?

To me? Nothing.

Quote:

Do you suppose that Buddhism is actually compatible with your atheistic opinions?

In some ways, perhaps, but the "life is suffering" message seems overly negative. Life can be joyful.

LaFlavor · 07-14-2002, 09:51 AM

you seem to be making the same mistake that most christians do. the only thing that atheists necessarily have in common is the lack of a belief in a deity.

nothing else really matters as far as atheism is concerned.

Quote:

Even atheists casually reading the above statements will notice some terminology which appears contrary to naturalism and scientific rationality. Buddhists view the Universe and reality very differently than all forms of western atheism. Among those differences which might be especially offensive to atheists is the concept of reincarnation.

1. atheism, naturalism and scientific rationalism are all different things. atheists are not necessarily naturalists.
2. there is no such thing as "western atheism"
3. while most atheists probably don't believe in reincarnation, the two ideas are not incompatible. the only belief that is incompatible with atheism is a belief in a deity.

Bible Humper · 07-14-2002, 11:11 AM

Hello David

Buddhism and Naturalism are both atheistic in the same way that Christianity and Islam are both theistic. Lack of belief in a deity is the one and only prerequisite to being labeled an "atheist".

Quote:

From the standpoint of atheism it seems a dangerous thing for them to identify a religion (Buddhism is universally regarded as a religion) so closely with atheism.

There is no "standpoint of atheism" beyond lack of belief in a deity.

If it is "dangerous" for a naturalist to regard buddhism as atheistic, then it is also "dangerous" for christians to regard Al Qaeda as theistic.

There are far more "dangerous" atheistic religions than Buddhism if you feel that all atheists and all theists must defend the beliefs of all who may be categorized as such. Just bring up the wackiest UFO cults you can find as if we need to justify them in order to justify lack of belief in a deity.

Denshuu · 07-14-2002, 11:57 AM

How can a religion be atheistic? If it's atheistic, it includes no belief in a god or gods, and therefore can't be a religion. Wouldn't Buddhism be more of a philosophy?

Edit: For example, could there not be a Buddhist Christian, or a Buddhist Muslim, etc., so as long as the core beliefs of Buddhism (which don't include a non-belief in a god or gods, as the "atheistic" label would imply) don't contradict the core beliefs of Christianity or Islam?

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Denshuu ]

Bokonon · 07-14-2002, 12:20 PM

The two branches of Buddhism are identified as the Hinayana and the Mahayana, of these two Mahayana Buddhism does accept the existence of the Absolute.

That's a bit of a broad statement.

Of the 2 primary schools, Theravada (the only surviving Hinayana school) and Mahayana, Theravada tends to be the more dogmatic and ritualistic. Mahayana is a very broad term referring to literally thousands of different sects. Some Mahayanists are Atheists, sound believe in a Pantheon of gods, some worship the Buddha himself. The Mahayana schools are also the most popular and famous in the Western world. Zen, Pure Land, and Tibetan Buddhism are all from the Mahayana lineage.

While I practice Buddhist forms of meditation, and while I respect the Buddha (if he existed) more than any other religious figure up to the time of Erasmus, I am not a Buddhist. Simply put, I do not believe in reincarnation. But one need not believe the dogma of Buddhism to benefit from the theraputic elements of the philosophy.

Along this topic, there's a book out there called Buddhism Without Beliefs. Has anyone read it? I haven't, but would be interested in what anyone thinks of it.

Irregardless of what anyone may think of the religion of Buddhism, I think we should all respect those that practice the faith. As a whole, they are some of the most peace-loving, tolerant, and non-violent people in this world.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

David Mathews · 07-14-2002, 12:25 PM

Hello Everyone,

On behalf of all those atheists who consider Buddhism a religion which validates atheism, I present the following scripture from Milarepa, the 11th century Tibetan Buddhist poet:

Quote:

I, Milarepa, the man, the Yogi of Tibet,
have a little learning, yet are my instructions great,
I take little sleep, though perservering at my meditation,
humble am I in heart, but great is my persistence.

Knowing one thing, I know all;
knowing all, I know that they are one.
I am an expert in Absolute Truth.

My bed is small, yet I am free to stretch my legs.
My clothes are thin, yet is my body warm.
I eat but little, yet am satisfied.

I am the one whom all yogis venerate,
to whom all faithful come, a guide
on the dread path of life and death.
Unattached to any home,
I have no fixed dwelling;
disregarding all, I do my will.

I crave for no possessions. Between clean
and unclean food I do not discriminate.
I suffer little pain from passion's string.

With little self-importance, I have few desires;
I crave not for objective and subjective things;
thus can I untie Nirvana's knots.

I console old people when they grieve;
loving fun, to the young I am a friend.
A yogi, I rove about all regions, withing
Devas and human beings to live in happiness.
(Milarepa's Meeting With Kar Chon Repa. The Hundred Thousand Songs of Milarepa. Volume One. Translated by Garma C.C. Chang. pp. 200-201)

You may understand my great appreciation for Milarepa's sentiments expressed above, and why his example might produce tremendous admiration for Buddhism in my soul. There is a reason why I know something of Buddhism, and that reason is not my desire to defeat or destroy that religion.

I admire admirable things in all religions. This principle applies to Buddhism, atheism and secular humanism. There is a reason why I have devoted so much time reading the scriptures of so many religions.

If there are any atheists who would like to inform me of their own understanding of Buddhism, I invite them to do so. I would like to know how you approach certain concepts in Buddhism which appear at face value to contradict your concept of reality.

But instead of considering such mundane subjects, consider the following statements from the Mahayana scriptures:

Quote:

"This is even for me, O Sariputra, an extremely difficult work that, having obtained the transcendent true knowledge in this world Saha, I taught the Law which all the world is reluctant to accept, during this corruption of mankind, of belief, of passion, of life, and of this present kalpa."
(The Smaller Sukhavati-Vyuha. 19)

"All these beings, O Subhuti, will be endowed with an immeasurable stock of merit, they will be endowed with an incomprehensible, incomparable, immeasurable and unmeasured stock of merit. All these beings, O Subhuti, will be equally remember the Bodhi, will recite it, and understand it. And why? Because it is not possible, O Subhit, that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings of little faith, by those who believe in self, in beings, in living beings, and in persons. It is impossible that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings who have not acquired the knowledge of Bodhisattvas, or that it should be learned, remembered, recited, and understood by them. The thing is impossible."
(The Vagrakkhedika. XV)
(Buddhist Mahayana Texts. Edited by E. B. Cowell)

You might notice that the above quotes may have some relevance to what I have said concerning the ineffable mystery. I suppose that it would require only a little effort on my own part to demonstrate that the concept of the incomprehensible is not absent from Buddhism.

Perhaps these Buddhistic scriptures are not famous enough for your tastes. Consider then the following scripture from The Dhammapada:

Quote:

"He whose passions are destroyed, who is indifferent to food, who has perceived the nature of release and unconditioned freedom, his path is difficult to understand like that of birds through the sky.
Even the gods envy him whose senses are subdued like horses well tamed by the charioteer, who is free from pride and from taints.
Such a man who is tolerant like the earth, like a threshold; who does his duty, who is a like a lake free from mud: to a man like that there is no cycle of births and deaths." (VII.4-6)
(A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy)

It seems as if Buddhism is not as atheistic as some atheists have supposed. Buddhists scriptures do make reference to the existence of the gods. Gods of the Hindu religion are even mentioned by name sometimes.

How then is Buddhism atheistic? I don't suppose that the Buddha or any of his original followers were atheistic in any sense. The Buddha did not mention or expound upon the gods because he his focus was on human ethics rather than God's existence, nature, character and will.

Modern Buddhism may be atheistic, or at the very least Buddhism in the West may be atheistic. Yet I do not suppose that philosophical atheism existed in India during the Buddha's time. India is a tremendously religious country, filled with millions of gods and demons.

If anyone objects, please do speak.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

LaFlavor · 07-14-2002, 12:37 PM

Quote:

On behalf of all those atheists who consider Buddhism a religion which validates atheism

what the hell is a religion that validates atheism? and what did that quote have to do with anything?

Nobles · 07-14-2002, 01:13 PM

(As stated earlier) The only requirement for the title atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Thus I believe it would be safe to label Buddhist as atheistic. However, not all atheist share the same philosophy presented in Buddhism. Just as, not all theist share the same philosophy presented in Christianity. If you don't believe in a god/gods the term atheist is appropriate.

I have just started researching Buddhism. My main conflict with Buddhist philosophy is the approach of gaining happiness. I don't agree with the philosophy of giving up everything that has the potential to cause suffering in order to achieve a happy life. By giving up everything you also give up everything that has potential to bring you joy. I think this philosophy falls in the same vein as "I won't drive a car because there is the potential I might crash and die!" For me, that's not truly living. Of course, one must way the pros to cons ratio in any given situation. I agree with Bertrand Russell�s ideas on seeking happiness outside yourself. Seek out what brings you happiness and pursue it. So in a nutshell:
Buddhist: Gain happy life by ridding sources of potential sorrow. (a rock is the true champion in this arena)
Personal Philosophy: Gain happy life by seeking sources of potential happiness.
That's the main issue of why I personally wouldn't practice Buddhism.

I don't believe someone who does not believe in a god/gods would need a religion that claims the term atheistic to "validate" his or her own personal use of the term atheist as self-description. If you don't believe in a god... you don't believe in a god. You need not a "religion" to fit that term.

Bokonon · 07-14-2002, 01:15 PM

If anyone objects, please do speak.

Reread my post above. First off, I don't think any of the passages you are listing have anything to do with gods. All the passages refer to Enlightenment.

And even if they did refer to gods (which they don't), you seem to not understand the nature of Buddhist schools.

You list a Tibetan writing. Yes, Tibetan Buddhists have a Pantheon of Gods. These are not the gods of India however. They are the gods of Bon, the religion that predates Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet.

You list 2 Mahayana scriptures. Fine. Buddhism is not like Christianity. The different Christian sects (for the most part) all agree that the Bible is the book that determines their faith. That is not the case with Buddhism. Different schools rely on different scriptures. Just because a scripture is from the Mahayana lineage does not mean all (or most) Mahayana Buddhists recognize that scripture as relevant to their school.

Then you list the Dhammapada. The Dhammapada is a Theravada document. Theravadas rely heavily on ritual, traditional, and sacred rites. They are dogmatic in nature.

Listing these scriptures to "prove" that all Buddhism isn't Atheistic is like listing an article from the Watchtower to prove that Christians don't believe Jesus is God.

07-14-2002, 11:57 AM	#5
Denshuu Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Virginia Posts: 164	How can a religion be atheistic? If it's atheistic, it includes no belief in a god or gods, and therefore can't be a religion. Wouldn't Buddhism be more of a philosophy? Edit: For example, could there not be a Buddhist Christian, or a Buddhist Muslim, etc., so as long as the core beliefs of Buddhism (which don't include a non-belief in a god or gods, as the "atheistic" label would imply) don't contradict the core beliefs of Christianity or Islam? [ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Denshuu ]</p>

07-14-2002, 12:20 PM	#6
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	The two branches of Buddhism are identified as the Hinayana and the Mahayana, of these two Mahayana Buddhism does accept the existence of the Absolute. That's a bit of a broad statement. Of the 2 primary schools, Theravada (the only surviving Hinayana school) and Mahayana, Theravada tends to be the more dogmatic and ritualistic. Mahayana is a very broad term referring to literally thousands of different sects. Some Mahayanists are Atheists, sound believe in a Pantheon of gods, some worship the Buddha himself. The Mahayana schools are also the most popular and famous in the Western world. Zen, Pure Land, and Tibetan Buddhism are all from the Mahayana lineage. While I practice Buddhist forms of meditation, and while I respect the Buddha (if he existed) more than any other religious figure up to the time of Erasmus, I am not a Buddhist. Simply put, I do not believe in reincarnation. But one need not believe the dogma of Buddhism to benefit from the theraputic elements of the philosophy. Along this topic, there's a book out there called Buddhism Without Beliefs. Has anyone read it? I haven't, but would be interested in what anyone thinks of it. Irregardless of what anyone may think of the religion of Buddhism, I think we should all respect those that practice the faith. As a whole, they are some of the most peace-loving, tolerant, and non-violent people in this world. [ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-14-2002, 01:13 PM	#9
Nobles New Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: College Station TX Posts: 3	(As stated earlier) The only requirement for the title atheist is the lack of belief in a deity. Thus I believe it would be safe to label Buddhist as atheistic. However, not all atheist share the same philosophy presented in Buddhism. Just as, not all theist share the same philosophy presented in Christianity. If you don't believe in a god/gods the term atheist is appropriate. I have just started researching Buddhism. My main conflict with Buddhist philosophy is the approach of gaining happiness. I don't agree with the philosophy of giving up everything that has the potential to cause suffering in order to achieve a happy life. By giving up everything you also give up everything that has potential to bring you joy. I think this philosophy falls in the same vein as "I won't drive a car because there is the potential I might crash and die!" For me, that's not truly living. Of course, one must way the pros to cons ratio in any given situation. I agree with Bertrand Russell�s ideas on seeking happiness outside yourself. Seek out what brings you happiness and pursue it. So in a nutshell: Buddhist: Gain happy life by ridding sources of potential sorrow. (a rock is the true champion in this arena) Personal Philosophy: Gain happy life by seeking sources of potential happiness. That's the main issue of why I personally wouldn't practice Buddhism. I don't believe someone who does not believe in a god/gods would need a religion that claims the term atheistic to "validate" his or her own personal use of the term atheist as self-description. If you don't believe in a god... you don't believe in a god. You need not a "religion" to fit that term.

07-14-2002, 01:15 PM	#10
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	If anyone objects, please do speak. Reread my post above. First off, I don't think any of the passages you are listing have anything to do with gods. All the passages refer to Enlightenment. And even if they did refer to gods (which they don't), you seem to not understand the nature of Buddhist schools. You list a Tibetan writing. Yes, Tibetan Buddhists have a Pantheon of Gods. These are not the gods of India however. They are the gods of Bon, the religion that predates Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet. You list 2 Mahayana scriptures. Fine. Buddhism is not like Christianity. The different Christian sects (for the most part) all agree that the Bible is the book that determines their faith. That is not the case with Buddhism. Different schools rely on different scriptures. Just because a scripture is from the Mahayana lineage does not mean all (or most) Mahayana Buddhists recognize that scripture as relevant to their school. Then you list the Dhammapada. The Dhammapada is a Theravada document. Theravadas rely heavily on ritual, traditional, and sacred rites. They are dogmatic in nature. Listing these scriptures to "prove" that all Buddhism isn't Atheistic is like listing an article from the Watchtower to prove that Christians don't believe Jesus is God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.