Is Buddhism a form of rational atheism?

[ChiDragon]

The term "atheism" is an untenable position.

 

In order to first claim that something does not exist, one must be able to realize the object that doesn't exist.

 

If I know what a mouse is, then I can say with certainty that there is no mouse in my pocket.

 

But if I don't know what a mouse is, I have no grounds to claim that my pocket does not contain a mouse.

 

At best, an atheist can only deny the existence of relative subjective interpretations of the term "God" hence the inherent self corroding ideation appears. Further, the belief of nonexistence precludes any acts of searching or really trying to find out what a mouse is, so there is little hope of ever discovering that which is said to not exist, in order to deny its existence.

 

First of all, was it wise to compare a tangible mouse with the intangible God....???

[Gerard]

SJ, same as Asians. It doesn't make a difference. It is all up to the individual. The right tools are out there, you just need to find them, WORK HARD, put all your energy into it and the sky is just the limit. There is no end to this journey, just 'enjoy' it on a daily basis. Focus on the path without losing sight of the goal.

[GrandmasterP]

"But if I don't know what a mouse is, I have no grounds to claim that my pocket does not contain a mouse."

 

Whilst one may not comprehend infinity ( who can?) one has no grounds to claim that one's pocket may not contain the infinite.

There may, for example ; be a grain of sand or dust in one's pocket.

 

To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.

( Blake).

Edited April 3, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Far too many sects n sutras to get my poor old head around is all.

Buddhisms are as Buddhisms does and there are simply so many varieties out there.

Hence my comment.

Wasn't aware of saying what 'it's not', one would need to know about all its manifestations.

Simply saying how I see it, hence my admitted and wilful ignorance of most Buddhisms.

Zen and PL I've looked at a bit but the Tibetans and Theravadans ... Nope.

Hope that helps.

 

 

No but you said you didn't care about it ... so I wondered why you bother to discuss it here or on DW. Just a little confused about where you are coming from.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

First of all, was it wise to compare a tangible mouse with the intangible God....???

I thought Apech would relate better, being a cat and all...

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Reading threads like this, makes me want to sympathize with Rongzomfan's assertion, that Westerners don't understand Dharmic traditions.

Quite a narrow statement there.

 

What about Easterner Buddhists whom were reincarnated in the west?

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

No but you said you didn't care about it ... so I wondered why you bother to discuss it here or on DW. Just a little confused about where you are coming from.

Yep. I hopefully see now where we maybe diverged there.

It wasn't Buddhisms per se .

I'm quite interested in SOME of those hence I've been on DW longer than I've been around TTB.

It's 'Dharmic Traditions' which I take to be the variegated nuances of the manifold Buddhist sects.

That can fair make ones head spin on DW.

Someone on here referred to someone who seems to believe that westerners can't understand Dharmic Traditions.

That's possibly true albeit a pretty sweeping and maybe somewhat suspect statement.

( How could one know about 'all' westerners and why 'westerners'?)

We can each of us choose to focus on a Buddhism that interests us and maybe learn a bit about it.

Understand ' Dharmic Traditions' though... That is a huge call there are so many of such variety.

I don't care to even begin and engage with a task so vast.

PL especially western PL clubs, bring it on.

Those interest me and we have a big one locally.

S. Suzuki Zens... Yes please. Fascinating stuff, they re- exported Zen to Japan when Zen was out of fashion in Japan and something different evolved as a result.

Vietnamese Buddhism ( which is PL + Zen) that I have looked at albeit only Thich Nhat Hanh.

As for the rest.

Nada. Far too much and too many.

Any better for ya?

Edited April 3, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[doc benway]

My best words right now:

Guru Yoga is not rational atheism.

Transformation of oneself and all sentient beings into deities is not equivalent to the denial of all deities.

Atheism of any flavor is an extreme and does not conform to the Middle Way…

The Natural State transcends rational

[Aetherous]

Buddhism is meant to be practiced, not understood. If you just understand it intellectually, I think you don't really understand it at all. So, true Buddhism is the opposite of rational atheism, imo.

Or if you already have a solid grasp of the definitions of God from the Bible for instance, learn about the six qualities of the Buddha jewel and see how it compares.

[Tibetan_Ice]

It is the heart that illuminates the mind, however corrupt or twisted the mind has become.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

It is the heart that illuminates the mind.

 

Excellent!

 

Top marks!

...

[GrandmasterP]

5-minute Buddhist here.

Covers the bases pretty well....

http://www.tricycle.com/sites/default/files/images/blog/Page%20of%205-Minute-Buddhist.pdf

Edited April 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Hi Buddha-chums,

 

Just going to get a few things off my chest while we are here chatting.

 

Belief in Buddhism. I read a lot of times that people struggle with certain ideas, like for instance rebirth (reincarnation) and karma. Some people especially Zen people want to junk these ideas right away. I think that people fall into the idea that these are part of some kind of creed and that they have to struggle to accept them (or reject them) to move forward. I think again this is a side effect of looking at Buddhism through the lens of Christianity. In Christianity believing is the thing. In fact doubting Thomas got a rough ride for even daring to ask to see Jesus' wounds (a perfectly reasonable thing I would have thought when faced with a walking dead man). From my experience its not like that in Buddhism. There are beliefs like in any spiritual path ... but they are not as important as practice. Or perhaps you might say not as important as living the right way ... or similar. Sure rebirth and karma are presented up front ... but they are more like working praxes than a creed. In fact it is said that you can't really understand karma and how it operates below the level of a Buddha. So whatever working model you are given ... is just that ... a working model.

 

I think it all comes down to Bible studies. In Judeo-Christian thought the Bible is the word of God either written by him or by human's inspired by the holy spirit. So the words, the laws given, the quotes have a special status over and above normal discourse and conversation. Hence all the shouting in Church about fire an fornication and so on. Its all a bit out of control. But people still want to bring this kind of thing to Eastern paths. We are trained from an early age to read scripture in a special way ... as if the written words themselves are unassailable and powerful. then we come to read the sutras or the TTC this same mentality somehow takes over ... when it is entirely inappropriate.

 

Discuss.

 

Please still no block quotes or links.

 

Thanks.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Apech

[Apech]

5-minute Buddhist here.

Covers the bases pretty well....

http://www.tricycle.com/sites/default/files/images/blog/Page%20of%205-Minute-Buddhist.pdf

 

 

Go and sit on the naughty step!!!!!!!

[GrandmasterP]

What did I do?

Oh yeah... Link.

Sorreeeee.

Totally agree with you on Christian mindset, if not actual belief in Christianity; influencing some occidentals approach to Buddhism.

On DW it tends to be the occidental 'converts' to Buddhism who are the most enthusiastic scrappers in the " My Lama can beat your Lama" sorta threads.

The people who are simply brought up Buddhist and take it for granted, they just rock on and chat about stuff without much or any rancour.

' Converts' are always the most zealous and I do realise that I am using a Chritian type metaphor when I say 'converts' to Buddhism.

In Buddhist terms you can't really convert from something - to- Buddhism as there's nothing to 'convert' either from or 'to'.

Nor anyone there to be 'converted' in the first place.

Edited April 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

What did I do?

 

Posted a link. Never mind I'm sure it was good one.

[GrandmasterP]

It was a hard morning.

We've had the Ofsted in.

Plus I'm old.

No more links.

( if I remember).

 

 

:-)

Edited April 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

So whatever working model you are given ... is just that ... a working model.

 

Quite so.

 

Apech wize man.

 

It ought to go without saying that it's all just models.

 

All be thought in mind of man.

 

People forget that all the time.

 

In fact it is said that you can't really understand karma and how it operates below the level of a Buddha.

 

So it would seem.

...

[GrandmasterP]

Yep 'working model' is a good way to put it.

We 'do' stuff.

Some stuff we 'do' can't be communicated in words that mean anything to someone else.

I know QiGong keeps me supple.

When I've not been able to cultivate due to being ill I've been as stiff as a board for ages until I get back to 'match fitness'.

That's not a belief, it's a stone fact.

Thenother stuff that I 'believe' Qi can and is doing when I am cultivating well and regularly. No way can I communicate that to anybody in words that would not lead most listeners to politiely back away from me.

Hence ai don't bother trying apart from on here or on DW.

At least on here people are doing something similar alongbheir own cultivation lines so we have commonality 'a bit'.

Edited April 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[doc benway]

Hi Buddha-chums,

 

Just going to get a few things off my chest while we are here chatting.

 

Belief in Buddhism. I read a lot of times that people struggle with certain ideas, like for instance rebirth (reincarnation) and karma. Some people especially Zen people want to junk these ideas right away. I think that people fall into the idea that these are part of some kind of creed and that they have to struggle to accept them (or reject them) to move forward. I think again this is a side effect of looking at Buddhism through the lens of Christianity. In Christianity believing is the thing. In fact doubting Thomas got a rough ride for even daring to ask to see Jesus' wounds (a perfectly reasonable thing I would have thought when faced with a walking dead man). From my experience its not like that in Buddhism. There are beliefs like in any spiritual path ... but they are not as important as practice. Or perhaps you might say not as important as living the right way ... or similar. Sure rebirth and karma are presented up front ... but they are more like working praxes than a creed. In fact it is said that you can't really understand karma and how it operates below the level of a Buddha. So whatever working model you are given ... is just that ... a working model.

 

I think it all comes down to Bible studies. In Judeo-Christian thought the Bible is the word of God either written by him or by human's inspired by the holy spirit. So the words, the laws given, the quotes have a special status over and above normal discourse and conversation. Hence all the shouting in Church about fire an fornication and so on. Its all a bit out of control. But people still want to bring this kind of thing to Eastern paths. We are trained from an early age to read scripture in a special way ... as if the written words themselves are unassailable and powerful. then we come to read the sutras or the TTC this same mentality somehow takes over ... when it is entirely inappropriate.

 

Discuss.

 

Please still no block quotes or links.

 

Thanks.

 

A sincere and sensible approach to any and all scripture is advisable, be it Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Rational Atheism, Daoist, or otherwise.

Even the Buddhist scriptures are afforded a revered and exceptional status, not too dissimilar to the bible.

The key is the teacher and the student and what they bring to the teachings.

[Apech]

A sincere and sensible approach to any and all scripture is advisable, be it Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Rational Atheism, Daoist, or otherwise.

Even the Buddhist scriptures are afforded a revered and exceptional status, not too dissimilar to the bible.

The key is the teacher and the student and what they bring to the teachings.

 

 

Of course reverence. texts are not supposed to be placed on the floor or walked over and are regarded as valuable possessions (in the spiritual sense) ... so in that sense it is indeed similar. It may be also that some regard sutras and so on almost as spiritual entities and worship them. The way I like to think is drawn from a book I have been reading called Buddhist Thoughts in which dharma is defined in two sense 1 ) as meaning the truth as in how things really are and 2 ) as the path to seeing things as they really are as taught by a Buddha ... (Note. 'a' Buddha not 'the' Buddha).

 

So when we say we take refuge in the dharma we mean exactly this ... that we seek refuge in seeing things how they really are and in the path towards that seeing.

[dee]

This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

~Dalai Lama

[themiddleway]

What beliefs or assumptions are synonymous with rational atheism? My rough sketch includes:

 

1.A first cause but no creator being,the universe and all life can be reduced to and explained through materialism, implicit in this view is realism.

2.No after life because consciousness is an epiphenomenon.

3.The superiority of humans to all other forms of life.

4.The apotheosis of human knowledge is derived from science.

5.The scientific revolution began in the West, implicit in this is the superiority of the Western culture.

6. Moral relativism .

 

Buddhism can be simplified as a phenomenological inquiry into why humans suffer and the subsequent yogic discipline used to overcome suffering.

 

1. Buddhism dose not necessarily negate the exsistence of God but regards such speculation as outside the bounds of sense and of no use in alleviating ones suffering. No clear agreement or disagreement here. Buddhism teaches that the Universe and all emergent phenomena are begingless and are ultimately unborn purity. But a disagreement here. I´m gonna say a draw.

2. One of the foudations of Buddhism is the belief in rebirth or the continuum of consciousness after death. 2nd disagreement.

3. Tricky one...human birth is regarded as precious and particulary conducive to realization but my understanding is that human beings are not the only beings capable of achieving buddhahood and nor is Earth the only dimension where a wheel turning Buddha can take birth. Buddhism also teaches that there are other life forms who are, relatively speaking, more powerful than human beings. I´m going to say 3rd disagreement.

4. Science is regarded ( like all objects of knowledge) as empty and is not considered essential to extinguishing the habitual grasping and reification of expereinces that perpetuate suffering. 4th disagreement.

5. No culture on Earth (or off it for that matter) is giving superiority, Buddhism has found relevance by pointing out the universal impermanence of all forms. 5th disagreement

6.The basic precept of Buddhism is not to harm any living thing but ´idiot´ compassion is not advocated either. The Jatakas tales briefly discuss the dilemma of knowing that a great evil can be avoided by killing someone but fall short in addressing the true complexity of the world. In Buddhism ´evil` is ultimatly regarded as a form of ignorance, I find this reasoning horribly inadeqate. Karma is translated as intent but is often taught as a cosmic justice system that brings no explanatory power to events. On the other side rational athesism birthed the most bloodiest century in human history. I believe that Buddhist and secular morality both posit that right and wrong are not absolute values but ignore the paradoxes and dangers implicit there in. I´m gonna say draw on morality.

 

 

Buddhism disagrees with 4 out of the 6 assumptions of athiesm. Buddhism is not rational athiesm. Obviously the above is simplistic and subjective but Its my 2 cents. Peace.

[GrandmasterP]

Right......

Understanding - Thought - Speech- Action - Livelihood - Effort - Mindfulness - Concentration....

are pretty good targets for anyone to aim at, be they atheist or theist or anything else.

Buddhism can be a secular path for sure.

Edited April 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Simple_Jack]

I agree with him to a large extent. There are various obsessions with westerners which are actually Christian theology plus some scientific empiricism.

 

I'm referring to the premise of the thread itself, in relation to Dharmic religions in general, which don't posit a creator god in a monotheistic sense. The various deities shared between Hinduism and Buddhism are not posited as the Creator since they have previous lives as humans, animals, etc. Furthermore, these same deities (e.g. Indra) feature in the Hinayana and Mahayana canons as receiving teachings from the Buddha and are sworn protectors of the buddhadharma; particularly in the case of Mahayana: many of these "Hindu" deities are treading the bodhisattva path and in some cases are considered as "enlightened". Traditionally, when a person formally takes refuge (same for the Bonpos believe it or not), there are described 4 days of each month corresponding with the lunar cycle, where an individual observes the 8 precepts and abstains from eating past noon. The significance of these days correlates to the 4 maharaja and their retinues who descends from the desire realm heaven of Trayastrimsha to report good deeds and misdeeds back to Indra. So the whole premise of this thread is moot. The purpose of Dharma, through the various forms of yoga to pramana, is to end ignorance.

 

Quite a narrow statement there.

 

What about Easterner Buddhists whom were reincarnated in the west?

 

I'm mostly referring to threads on internet forums, including dharmawheel, where unawareness surrounding the significance of "Hindu" deities in Buddhism, are common.

 

'Converts' are always the most zealous and I do realise that I am using a Chritian type metaphor when I say 'converts' to Buddhism.

 

People born into a certain religion, unless they are devout followers, tend to be more moderate when it comes to religious observances. Same applies to countries where Buddhism is the native religion, as this doesn't automatically mean an individual engages in the application of Buddha's teachings beyond, for example, donating money or food to bhiksu's and bhiksuni's.