Is Buddhism a form of rational atheism?

[GrandmasterP]

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.

Interesting post, if that 'dependent origination' in the penultimate sentence is your 'a posteriori knowledge transcends.....' of the final sentence you have yourself set limits on the analysed set: vis your .. " I've observed Buddhist conflate....".

Hence ... a posteriori, here right now.... " There is a tea cup on the table by my chair" -

That cup is, was and shall remain a cup until it gets broken, the table will be the table it was since manufacture as will the chair. Until such time as they are not.

I'm happy to make that observation of the 'now- here' and claim it as 'a posteriori'.

However, I would hesitate to make such a claim in relation to Buddhist Rationalism as, of necessity; unlike my cup, chair and table; not all Buddhists are or necessarily remain the same thing, all of the time.

As hypothetical example, an atheist-rationalist claiming PL club member this year may throw that aside, join the New Kadampas next year and thence begin to lay claim on NKT dogmatics.

People change, hence whenever we draw conclusions on and from a 'set' of people; I respectfully suggest that we could be on less than sure foundations were we not to limit our conclusions to the, of necessity; limited data set studied.

As the student once wrote in all seriousness, and thereby set her tutor to giggling.....

" All generalisations are suspect."

Edited April 8, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

Quick crib for my post above =

 

" Sometimes but not Always."

 

 

 

:-)

Edited April 8, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[themiddleway]

I am generalising about groups for the sake of argument. Looking back, Buddhism has been absorbed into different cultures with out the core of the teaching being altered. But even though the sciences are long way off mapping the brain, and with some scientists acknowledging that consciousness may be irreducible, rational Buddhists like Batchelor et al are adamant that notions like rebirth can now be thrown out. I perceive the rational Buddhist crowd as making the foregone conclusion that science has explained everything and we are not far off a grand unifying theory that will purify every last bit of magical thinking that is left. The momentum of Western academia is based on disenchantment that ignores indigenous traditions and historiography, the prime example of this is Buddhist Tantra. Even though scholars were aware of a Indian historiographical account of Tantra they ignored it because it did not fit their agenda of cultural rationalisation. We now have Westernised understanding of Tantra that is completely inconsistent with the actual tradition. I think the general trend of rationalisation and it's rhetoric of technological utopia is bleak and conceals cultural chauvinism.

Edited April 8, 2014 by themiddleway

[idiot_stimpy]

Buddhism is about liberating yourself/others from suffering.

[themiddleway]

 

Buddhism is about liberating yourself/others from suffering.

I know but if I limit myself to that I don't get to talk shit.

[yabyum24]

No it isn't.

 

Discuss.

 

Rule: in your own words no links or quotes.

Agree, but I've seen it used as such on many occasions.

 

It runs a bit like this:

Belief in god = irrational superstition. Science is not irrational. Buddhism doesn't worship god, therefore science and Buddhism are both rational.

 

Karma and rebirth can both be (correctly) interpreted as events contained within this lifetime, thus dispensing of the last vestiges of something which could be construed as culturally accrued superstition.

 

Emptiness is confirmed scientifically, as we now have physics to explain that nothing is there which we think is there, including (by default) 'self'. The body being just a collection of cells, electrical impulses and so on - no more to it than that.

 

The way is now clear to follow a system which is exclusively concerned with lessening suffering within this life - a kind of therapy - as Buddha always intended it to be in the first place.

 

If questioned on the afterlife, the reply is "that which was never born in the first place cannot be said to die".

 

We thus arrive at (pretty much) the same place as modern science, which is both comforting and verifiable.

 

But is it really what Buddha taught?

[GrandmasterP]

It can be if that's how someone chooses to interpret 'Buddha's Teachings' as such.

Thing is, apart from the '5- minute Buddhist' basics each sect and everyone else who pins on a Buddha badge brings their own interpretations to the table.

 

5 minute Buddhist here...

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/five-minute-buddhist

Edited April 9, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Apech]

Agree, but I've seen it used as such on many occasions.

 

It runs a bit like this:

Belief in god = irrational superstition. Science is not irrational. Buddhism doesn't worship god, therefore science and Buddhism are both rational.

 

Karma and rebirth can both be (correctly) interpreted as events contained within this lifetime, thus dispensing of the last vestiges of something which could be construed as culturally accrued superstition.

 

Emptiness is confirmed scientifically, as we now have physics to explain that nothing is there which we think is there, including (by default) 'self'. The body being just a collection of cells, electrical impulses and so on - no more to it than that.

 

The way is now clear to follow a system which is exclusively concerned with lessening suffering within this life - a kind of therapy - as Buddha always intended it to be in the first place.

 

If questioned on the afterlife, the reply is "that which was never born in the first place cannot be said to die".

 

We thus arrive at (pretty much) the same place as modern science, which is both comforting and verifiable.

 

But is it really what Buddha taught?

 

 

No it isn't as far as I can see. I have even seen Buddhism described as a kind of science by people who should know better.

[yabyum24]

5 minute Buddhist here...

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/five-minute-buddhist

Tut tut - another link. Bloody Ofsted.

[Apech]

Tut tut - another link. Bloody Ofsted.

 

 

Yes I had to overlook that out of pure compassion.

[doc benway]

Buddhism, like every other religion, is many things to many people.

[Simple_Jack]

It can be if that's how someone chooses to interpret 'Buddha's Teachings' as such.

Thing is, apart from the '5- minute Buddhist' basics each sect and everyone else who pins on a Buddha badge brings their own interpretations to the table.

 

5 minute Buddhist here...

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/five-minute-buddhist

 

If someone cultivates enough or if the conditions are right, their various proclivities which feed their preconceived notions, will be smashed to pieces. Acclimating to secularized Western attitudes is one of the challenges Buddhism is facing as a presentation of a viable means for easing mental suffering. You know what I find as ironic about this thread? It's the surprising unacceptance, towards people who interpret Buddha's teachings through a physicalist lens, who sees Buddha's teachings on rebirth, karma, etc. as a form of dogmatism; you don't see any threads voicing dissent against people who interpret the Buddha's teachings in the contradictory fashion of eternalism.

 

No it isn't as far as I can see. I have even seen Buddhism described as a kind of science by people who should know better.

 

Can't we all just get along? Nothing is necessary except resting the mind in its natural state...so then why don't we just do that?

[Apech]

If someone cultivates enough or if the conditions are right, their various proclivities which feed their preconceived notions, will be smashed to pieces. Acclimating to secularized Western attitudes is one of the challenges Buddhism is facing as a presentation of a viable means for easing mental suffering. You know what I find as ironic about this thread? It's the surprising unacceptance, towards people who interpret Buddha's teachings through a physicalist lens, who sees Buddha's teachings on rebirth, karma, etc. as a form of dogmatism; you don't see any threads voicing dissent against people who interpret the Buddha's teachings in the contradictory fashion of eternalism.

 

 

Can't we all just get along? Nothing is necessary except resting the mind in its natural state...so then why don't we just do that?

 

 

You make reasonable points but the title of this thread is about whether Buddhism is a form of rational atheism. Materialism and science have a completely different view ... that of reality as an object which can be tested and probed for its true nature. I don't think dressing up dharma as a kind of science will work.

[GrandmasterP]

Tut tut - another link. Bloody Ofsted.

 

Grade 1

( Smug Glow).

" Outstanding".... Woo hoo.

 

:-)

 

 

[forestofclarity]

The irony of speaking about Buddhism is that according to many Buddhist teaching, there is no Buddhism. Like everything else, Buddhist practice is constantly changing and lacks a substantial self. Even more so, the world as it is is much too big to be pinned down in words and concepts.

 

With that in mind, I would say that while some Buddhists are rational atheists, not all Buddhists practice in that way. In fact, the more I practice, the less I find that dualities such as God/not-God, rational/irrational really do not apply.

[Apech]

The irony of speaking about Buddhism is that according to many Buddhist teaching, there is no Buddhism. Like everything else, Buddhist practice is constantly changing and lacks a substantial self. Even more so, the world as it is is much too big to be pinned down in words and concepts.

 

With that in mind, I would say that while some Buddhists are rational atheists, not all Buddhists practice in that way. In fact, the more I practice, the less I find that dualities such as God/not-God, rational/irrational really do not apply.

 

Yes well put. Its a mistake, which perhaps I have fallen into, to deny the possibility of the range of practices and approaches which could be termed Buddhist. I would still say though, that Budhism cannot be contained within the definition of rational atheism.

[themiddleway]

>>>>If someone cultivates enough or if the conditions are right, their various proclivities which feed their preconceived notions, will be smashed to pieces. Acclimating to secularized Western attitudes is one of the challenges Buddhism is facing as a presentation of a viable means for easing mental suffering. You know what I find as ironic about this thread? It's the surprising unacceptance, towards people who interpret Buddha's teachings through a physicalist lens, who sees Buddha's teachings on rebirth, karma, etc. as a form of dogmatism; you don't see any threads voicing dissent against people who interpret the Buddha's teachings in the contradictory fashion of eternalism.<<<<

 

 

I've seen loads of threads lambasting eternalist interpretations of Buddhism. What irkes me the most is Batchelor et al are capatlizing on the simplistic anti religious arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens to promote their contribution to cultural hegemony. I read one of Stephen.Batchelors books, it had a quote by Hitchens on it, something like : " I endorse this secularised form of Buddhism because if our species is going to survive we must embrace rationalism bla, bla". I personally think Batchelor is a failed monastic, some people should not commit to that life. The impression I got from his books was...I've meditated for years, wore robes, enlightenment is basically medatative absorption, the Tibetans invented a lot of B.S., paths that 'point out' the nature of mind are quasi Buddhism, siddhi's are left over from primitive cultures etc

This goes against my experience of being a student under a lineage Guru and my own practise/experience. Yet the rational model is fast becoming the normative Buddhism. I have particularly came up against this rational elitism in the lay Thervada / vipassana crowd, the look of disbelief that you don't psychologize every single bit of the Dharma. Or the classic," Thervada is the purest model -insert rationalist- form of Buddhism , we don't resort to self mythologizing" but forgetting that the Theravada insists that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha in Tavatimsa heaven during his seventh rains retreat.

Edited April 9, 2014 by themiddleway

[GrandmasterP]

Yes well put. Its a mistake, which perhaps I have fallen into, to deny the possibility of the range of practices and approaches which could be termed Buddhist. I would still say though, that Budhism cannot be contained within the definition of rational atheism.

 

Agreed, but maybe rational atheism can be contained within Buddhism along with everything else.

[Apech]

Agreed, but maybe rational atheism can be contained within Buddhism along with everything else.

 

Maybe. But would have to be very careful about what it means.

[GrandmasterP]

>>>>If someone cultivates enough or if the conditions are right, their various proclivities which feed their preconceived notions, will be smashed to pieces. Acclimating to secularized Western attitudes is one of the challenges Buddhism is facing as a presentation of a viable means for easing mental suffering. You know what I find as ironic about this thread? It's the surprising unacceptance, towards people who interpret Buddha's teachings through a physicalist lens, who sees Buddha's teachings on rebirth, karma, etc. as a form of dogmatism; you don't see any threads voicing dissent against people who interpret the Buddha's teachings in the contradictory fashion of eternalism.<<<<

 

I've seen loads of threads lambasting eternalist interpretations of Buddhism. What irkes me the most is Batchelor et al are capatlizing on the simplistic anti religious arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens to promote their contribution to cultural hegemony. I read one of Stephen.Batchelors books, it had a quote by Hitchens on it, something like : " I endorse this secularised form of Buddhism because if our species is going to survive we must embrace rationalism bla, bla". I personally think Batchelor is a failed monastic, some people should not commit to that life. The impression I got from his books was...I've meditated for years, wore robes, enlightenment is basically medatative absorption, the Tibetans invented a lot of B.S., paths that 'point out' the nature of mind are quasi Buddhism, siddhi's are left over from primitive cultures etc

This goes against my experience of being a student under a lineage Guru and my own practise/experience. Yet the rational model is fast becoming the normative Buddhism. I have particularly came up against this rational elitism in the lay Thervada / vipassana crowd, the look of disbelief that you don't psychologize every single bit of the Dharma. Or the classic," Thervada is the purest model -insert rationalist- form of Buddhism , we don't resort the self mythologizing" but forgetting that the Theravada insists that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha in Tavatimsa heaven during his seventh rains retreat.

There's room and more for all sorts and conditions though surely?

All respect to lineage holders they are in a long line of tradition and practice.

For sure there can be 'transmission' and that's valid and valuable to the person 'transmitting' it and the person 'receiving' it.

That's a facet of Buddhism ( and some other paths too) but it neither defines ( because not everyone does it and where they do, there are many different lineages) nor encompasses ( because as we agree on here there are non lineage routes too).

What suits one won't suit another and we can't 'privilege' one path, beyond personal choice.

To do so might seem to be seen as marginalising , at best; or at worst disrespecting other paths.

One mountain for sure... But there are many paths up that mountain.

Edited April 9, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[yabyum24]

I have particularly came up against this rational elitism in the lay Thervada / vipassana crowd, the look of disbelief that you don't psychologize every single bit of the Dharma. Or the classic," Thervada is the purest model -insert rationalist- form of Buddhism , we don't resort to self mythologizing"

Absolutely.

[doc benway]

The cool thing about Buddhism is that whether or not it can be reasonably described as Rational Atheism, a rational atheist could be very comfortable practicing the elements that make sense. And that's all anyone should every do.

[deci belle]

Activating mind without dwelling on its contents

[deci belle]

Thanks you guys…❤

 

I don't know what could possibly be termed a basis connoting rationalism with respect to buddhist teaching. What buddhism is, really, essentially… is a direct pointing to mind itself, as itself. There is no corollary, as mind itself is one's primal identity. A buddha is one who accomplishes this identity having no creation, beginning, self.

 

Furthermore, since buddhism isn't a faith-based belief system but rather a teaching of the highest order to discover and (re)activate the innate inconceivable function in the individual and to awaken the inconceivable reality inherent in the beginningless present, it is hardly a candidate for logical treatment as atheism.

 

It isn't a matter of belief, much less reification in a creator— those who see reality see the absence of anything created. Logically, it's all there is to see, as creation is empty of the absolute. There are only conditions. Sudden enlightenment is the experience of the absence of nothing. This is proof that emptiness isn't empty because ultimately nothing doesn't exist.

 

Since one can actually experience the absence of nothing, who is this one, after all? Nothing, not even nothing created, oneself equal to the knowledge of no-thing~ who then is done with notions of theism? There is truly no thing. How wonderful.

 

One needn't delve into sweeping rationalizations or even elegant analyses of conventional reality since anything brought up by the rational mind is intrinsically short-sighted, biased, skewed, self-reflective, lacking in objectivity.

 

What is evidence of the absence of creation in the midst of objects is the ability of those who see emptiness in all things to prove it in ordinary affairs: i.e., adapting selflessly to ordinary affairs unbeknownst to anyone, thereby to take over creation, steal potential and enter the tao in reality. Overall this is just expressing nonbeing in the midst of being. This is the day-job of enlightening beings.

 

It's not that ultimately there is no thing (in terms of the absolute)~ it is simply possible to abide in this no thing on the spot and never leave it right now. How else can the sage respond all day without responding? How else could Yunyan have said, "East Mountain walks on water"? Furthermore, why would he have ever uttered those words? Why have the houses of Chan revered these words ever since?

 

Since there is no creator, no beginning, self or singularity attributable to "theism", the concept in and of itself is neither here nor there. How much less relevant is an a-theism in terms of discussing the nature of buddhism?

 

That the authentic teachings of the world are spontaneous expressions of the source of religion has nothing to do with theism, but rather the impersonal intent of the selfless body of unborn awareness, which is an unattributability blazing in your skull since before your parents were born.

[themiddleway]

I've got nothing more to add, except whatever is your chosen form of Dharma I wish you all the best. Peace.