Is Buddhism a form of rational atheism?

[doc benway]

 

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.

 

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

 

 

He often refers to the view (sunyata) and the path (bodhicitta).

[GrandmasterP]

Monasticism hasn't really caught on in western Buddhisms either whereas it's almost the 'norm' in many traditionally Buddhist areas.

OP wise I still think that some Buddhisms ( western mainly) might well be forms of rational atheism.

Can't see any harm in that if it is the case,

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Eleven years have I spent as hermit.

 

I always thought I would like the monastic life.

 

I'm gettin' a bit bored wid it now.

...

[Apech]

Monasticism hasn't really caught on in western Buddhisms either whereas it's almost the 'norm' in many traditionally Buddhist areas. OP wise I still think that some Buddhisms ( western mainly) might well be forms of rational atheism. Can't see any harm in that if it is the case,

 

 

As I understand it the Buddha introduced the monastic approach because at the time he lived in Ancient INdia the duties of a householder were many and onerous. So if you were a lay practitioner your societal duties left you little time to practice. So the life of a monk left time to study and meditate. In other words it was not a preferred life style per se but just a practical solution to give people the opportunity to practice. I would suggest all hermetic life styles are the same ... the asceticism, celibacy and so on are by products of the need to devote as much time as possible to practice. Nowadays as we are so much more prosperous it is possible to live within society and still have time to practice. So you could argue it is not so necessary to think about being a monk.

 

 

I saw a video on youtube (which I won't link to according to my own rules ) of a conference on Buddhism in London where the two guest speakers were Stephen Batchelor and John Peacock ... they were both advocates of the 'modernist' approach (which stems at least in part to the work in Oxford by Richard Gombrich - a Sanskrit scholar who seeks to deconstruct Buddhism back to a supposed pure original form. When asked if they were enlightened (the two speakers) they had pause for thought as they thought they might well be. Such is their insight that they have reduced the Buddhas awakening to something quite mundane and ordinary. In their view it seems all actual practicing Buddhist in the world (apart from them) have got it wrong, so that cultural influence, Hinduism and so on have corrupted the Buddha's original pure message. A nice way to wipe the board clean of 2,500 years of thought and practice based on their own preferences. So their Buddhism is probably a rational atheism. But then I suspect their Buddhism isn't Buddhism at all but something have created fro their own enjoyment.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

OP wise I still think that some Buddhisms ( western mainly) might well be forms of rational atheism. Can't see any harm in that if it is the case.

 

That's fair enough I think.

 

I saw a video on youtube (which I won't link to according to my own rules ) of a conference on Buddhism in London where the two guest speakers were Stephen Batchelor and John Peacock ... they were both advocates of the 'modernist' approach (which stems at least in part to the work in Oxford by Richard Gombrich - a Sanskrit scholar who seeks to deconstruct Buddhism back to a supposed pure original form. When asked if they were enlightened (the two speakers) they had pause for thought as they thought they might well be

 

It's comical really.

 

These are supposed authorities on buddhism.

 

It is not possible to be enlightened and unsure.

 

If you enlightened you know about it.

 

Dat fer sure.

...

[Simple_Jack]

I'm just parroting what Malcolm has said on DW, but I think we could be more generous in accepting that there are people such as Batchelor, who do not believe in rebirth, etc., but who nonetheless consider themselves Buddhist practitioners. Even if they do interpret it through a physicalist lens, Buddha did not specifically state that belief in rebirth was a prerequisite to liberation. Just as there are people today, who aren't interested in meditation/yoga beyond as stress relief, the Buddha catered his teachings to those not interested in liberation (e.g. the Kalamas), by teaching the 4 brahmaviharas.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I'm just parroting what Malcolm has said on DW, but I think we could be more generous in accepting that there are people such as Batchelor, who do not believe in rebirth, etc., but who nonetheless consider themselves Buddhist practitioners. Even if they do interpret it through a physicalist lens, Buddha did not specifically state that belief in rebirth was a prerequisite to liberation. Just as there are people today, who aren't interested in meditation/yoga beyond as stress relief, the Buddha catered his teachings to those not interested in liberation (e.g. the Kalamas), by teaching the 4 brahmaviharas.

 

My advice is don't be a parrot.

 

You would be better off being a miner bird.

 

Or a magpie.

 

I do accept there are people who consider themselves buddhist practitioners who don't believe in rebirth etc.

 

I don't see the connection to not being interested in liberation.

 

I simply doubt someone can claim to be an expert in buddhism whilst being unsure whether they are liberated or not.

 

Physician, heal thyself.

 

It's the blind leading the blind.

...

Edited April 5, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

As I understand it the Buddha introduced the monastic approach because at the time he lived in Ancient INdia the duties of a householder were many and onerous. So if you were a lay practitioner your societal duties left you little time to practice. So the life of a monk left time to study and meditate. In other words it was not a preferred life style per se but just a practical solution to give people the opportunity to practice. I would suggest all hermetic life styles are the same ... the asceticism, celibacy and so on are by products of the need to devote as much time as possible to practice. Nowadays as we are so much more prosperous it is possible to live within society and still have time to practice. So you could argue it is not so necessary to think about being a monk.

 

 

I saw a video on youtube (which I won't link to according to my own rules ) of a conference on Buddhism in London where the two guest speakers were Stephen Batchelor and John Peacock ... they were both advocates of the 'modernist' approach (which stems at least in part to the work in Oxford by Richard Gombrich - a Sanskrit scholar who seeks to deconstruct Buddhism back to a supposed pure original form. When asked if they were enlightened (the two speakers) they had pause for thought as they thought they might well be. Such is their insight that they have reduced the Buddhas awakening to something quite mundane and ordinary. In their view it seems all actual practicing Buddhist in the world (apart from them) have got it wrong, so that cultural influence, Hinduism and so on have corrupted the Buddha's original pure message. A nice way to wipe the board clean of 2,500 years of thought and practice based on their own preferences. So their Buddhism is probably a rational atheism. But then I suspect their Buddhism isn't Buddhism at all but something have created fro their own enjoyment.

I've read a bit of Gombrich, found him hard going.

A bit 'arid and academic'.

His ilk are one of my 'Buddhist Clubs' like the western PL I've mentioned.

For sure there's a Sangha of sorts in those clubs as they consist of likeminded people getting together to talk about and do some Buddhist 'stuff'.

Like you I don't think the clubs ( my term) are sometimes considered as Buddhist, but maybe in a slightly qualified sense thus...

Insofar as a Dharmic Tradition cultivator, for example your Tibetan or Thai tradition Buddhist - would recognise them as being Buddhist 'like him'.

They are however a facet of modern 'Buddhisms' and none the worse for it.

My approach tends towards 'let a thousand flowers bloom' .

Each to her or his own and none privileged above another.

The alternative at worst could be someone claiming in relation to one or other of those Buddhisms - that ,,,"That's NOT Buddhism" .

Not something I'd ever venture to do.

How could anyone truly 'know' for sure?

Edited April 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I'm perfectly happy for buddhists to speak for themselves at the end of the day.

 

I'm not a buddhist.

...

[doc benway]

I've always danced around the issue, and truth be told, never really felt sure.

But I'm going to come out here and now - I am a Buddhist!

[Apech]

The way I have been taught about what is and what is not Buddhist is the Four Dharma Seals ... which I think is Chandrakirti (stand to be corrected). Basically if whatever it is teaches these then it is Dharma if it doesn't it isn't. In my own words so stand to be corrected again ...

 

1. All compounded phenomena are impermanent.

2. Suffering arises when phenomena are contaminated by the idea of self.

3. All phenomena are pure beyond elaboration i.e. empty

4. Nirvana is perfect peace.

 

So no mention of rebirth, karma and so on. Quite right. So I have been hard on Mr. Batchelor ... and friends ... maybe what they do is dharma ... but I would say still to be treated with some caution and care.

[Apech]

I've always danced around the issue, and truth be told, never really felt sure.

But I'm going to come out here and now - I am a Buddhist!

 

 

Hey its getting like an AA meeting in here!

 

Took me a long, long, time to say anything like that ... cos I resisted being an -ist of any kind.

 

But yes I can say ...my name is Apech and I'm a Buddhist.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I'm a buddha.

 

Not a buddhist.

...

[GrandmasterP]

THE 5 MINUTE BUDDHIST

! Man is supreme and responsible for his own thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and actions.

! All existence is conditioned, relative, interdependent, and based on cause and effect.

! The self, the soul, the ego are mental projections, false beliefsAnatta (no- self, no-soul). They exist as conventional truth but not as ultimate truth.

The Five Aggregates

Being is experienced as:

1. Matter

2. Sensation

3. Perception

4. Mental Formation

5. Consciousness

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life is characterized by impermanence and suffering, or Dukkha (insatiable thirst).

2. The Origin of Dukkha (suffering) is attachment to desire.

3. The Cessation of Dukkha is achieved, not by belief, but by the contemplation, understanding, and elimination of desire and attachment.

4. The Noble Eight-fold Path is the way to achieve the cessation of Dukkha.

The Noble Eight-fold Path

1. Right Understanding

2. Right Thought

3. Right Speech

4. Right Action

5. Right Livelihood

6. Right Mental Discipline

7. Right Mindfulness

8. Right Concentration.

 

The Four Sublime States

1. Unlimited universal love and good will 2. Compassion for all suffering beings 3. Sympathetic joy for the success and

well-being of others 4. Equanamity

The Five Hindrances

1. Sensual lust

2. Ill-will

3. Physical and mental languor and torpor

4. Restlessness and worry

5. Doubt and skepticism

The Five Precepts

The moral obligations of a lay Buddhist:

1. Not to destroy life

2. Not to steal

3. Not to commit adultery

4. Not to lie

5. Not to take intoxicating drink

 

The Seven Factors of Enlightenment

1. Mindfulness

2. Investigation and research 3. Energy

4. Joy

5. Relaxation

6. Concentration

7. Equanamity

Edited April 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

any luck today in the Grand National, GMP?

[GrandmasterP]

any luck today in the Grand National, GMP?

 

My two horses ran very well.

In fact I believe that they are still running.

Sadly the race ended some hours ago.

 

:-)

[themiddleway]

Atheism is a non prophet organisation. George.Carlin

Rationalising Buddhism is a form of cultural imperialism.

Buddhism is a religion.

Buddhism without rebirth and the 31 planes of existence is not the teachings of an enlightened being.

The sine qua non of Buddhism is enlightenment, which includes insight into rebirth and the 31 planes of existence, a characteristic of perfect knowledge.

Edited April 5, 2014 by themiddleway

[Simple_Jack]

I do accept there are people who consider themselves buddhist practitioners who don't believe in rebirth etc.

 

Just as their interpretations are slanted towards physicalism, this applies to people who have an interpretation that's slanted towards eternalism and realism (Buddhist definition), but nonetheless consider themselves practitioners of buddhadharma. Paraphrasing Malcolm: the strength of the Buddha's patched robe is very accommodating in the face of differing points of view of his teachings.

[Simple_Jack]

The way I have been taught about what is and what is not Buddhist is the Four Dharma Seals ... which I think is Chandrakirti (stand to be corrected). Basically if whatever it is teaches these then it is Dharma if it doesn't it isn't. In my own words so stand to be corrected again ...

 

1. All compounded phenomena are impermanent.

2. Suffering arises when phenomena are contaminated by the idea of self.

3. All phenomena are pure beyond elaboration i.e. empty

4. Nirvana is perfect peace.

 

So no mention of rebirth, karma and so on. Quite right. So I have been hard on Mr. Batchelor ... and friends ... maybe what they do is dharma ... but I would say still to be treated with some caution and care.

 

In my opinion basic standards which would indicate a person or a school is Buddhist in orientation are:

 

A dharma theory based on skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas.

 

A theory of suffering based on affliction and dependent origination.

 

A path theory based on śamatha and vipaśyāna.

 

Acceptance of the four seals.

 

A concept of refuge.

 

I think that this basic framework provides a wide latitude for differences of opinion, including for example eternalist interpretations of the tathāgatagarbha sutras or the austere doctrine of emptiness taught in Madhyamaka and Prajñāpāramitā. It even has room for "heretics" like Batchelor and Zenmar.

 

~ Loppon Malcolm

[Tibetan_Ice]

Rule: in your own words no links or quotes.

 

[Apech]

Rule: in your own words no links or quotes.

 

 

Thank you. The test here, on this thread, is if you have listened and understood and made the knowledge yours then you can say what you think without quotes. Better that - even if you make mistakes of precision in doing so - than block quote someone else.

[GrandmasterP]

I never understood that haiku thread either.

[Apech]

I never understood that haiku thread either.

 

I never under

Stood that haiku thread either

no more so do I.

[GrandmasterP]

Nah.

Mental block here.

Can't make 'em work at all.

 

Crosswords and Sudoku the same.

Mrs GMP can do those for fun.

Not me.

Edited April 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[themiddleway]

The crux of the matter is the a priori assumption that consciousness can be reduced to brain function. Given the explanatory success of science you can't blame Bachelor et al in their critique of magical thinking in Buddhism.

While the generalised emphasis in Buddhism is on dependent origination, the interpretations of it varies between schools and individuals. I've observed Buddhist conflate dependent origination and evolution, this lazy rhetoric is deployed when Buddhist are blatantly appealing to authority to buttress a general theory of conditionality. "Look we're super rational too." But conditionality in Buddhism should not be viewed as strictly linear, this is another reification error to make Buddhist teachings conform to the dogmatic linearity arguments of rational atheism. Dependent origination ultimately means phenomena are non-arisen, it's scope is intended to be confined to the dependent and pure nature of mind. I would argue that this a posteriori knowledge transcends the mechanism of brain function. The body of light being the most remarkable exemplar of this.

Edited April 8, 2014 by themiddleway