Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by piotr »

Hi,
vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

I think that Retro has made some excellent points, for example:

MN 48 wrote:
"If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled."

This agrees with DN 1 and indeed, most discourses.
This in no way says that there is no next world! Here the problem is not what a monk is obsessed about (as it's translated by Ñāṇamoli/Bodhi), but the fact of obsession itself:

  • Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, considers thus: 'Is there any obsession unabandoned in myself that might so obsess my mind that I cannot know or see things as they actually are?' If a bhikkhu is obsessed by sensual lust, then his mind is obsessed. If he is obsessed by ill will, then his mind is obsessed. If he is obsessed by sloth and torpor, then his mind is obsessed. If he is obsessed by restlessness and remorse, then his mind is obsessed. If he is obsessed by doubt, then his mind is obsessed. If a bhikkhu is absorbed in speculation about this world, then his mind is obsessed. If a bhikkhu is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is obsessed. If a bhikkhu takes to quarrelling and brawling and is deep in disputes, stabbing others with verbal daggers, then his mind is obsessed.


If you read the whole passage it actually confirms that there is a next world (as there is this world) in the Buddha's teaching — quite contrary to what you're trying to prove.
Last edited by piotr on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Nyana »

mikenz66 wrote:Thinking about this some more, the reservation I have with the "it's all just speculative soul theories" interpretation is that this drifts dangerously towards a nihilistic denial of kammic consequences, an "It's all just speculative soul theories, so, no worries...".

I'd be interested to hear thoughts about this, since I think it's an important thing to explore (since this interpretation, on the face of it, seems quite attractive...).
There are seven wrong views that are classified as doctrines of annihilationism (ucchedavāda). There are four wrong views that are classified as doctrines of endless equivocation (amarāvikkhepavāda). There is also the wrong view of nihilism (natthika-diṭṭhi), the wrong view of non-doing (akiriya-diṭṭhi), and the wrong view of non-causality (ahetu-diṭṭhi).
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by piotr »

Hi,
daverupa wrote:Here, indifference and non-delight are attitudes taken towards things that are insignificant, it seems to me. Perhaps we can see in this an instruction which guides from rebirth-view to right-view?
It is a practice towards disenchantment in order to cease future becoming, i.e. to stop rebirth.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I have always understood the annihilationist view to be a view about the
self, and that it was rejected for that reason.

I have been concerned for some time about the confusion of this view with
others, such as materialism, nihilism, and the view that: "There is nothing
after death". The Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) defines the annihilationist view
as follows:

4. Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57

84. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

85. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

Is this the same as the materialist view?

Is this the same as the nihilist view?

Regards, Vincent.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Nyana »

vinasp wrote: Is this the same as the materialist view?

Is this the same as the nihilist view?
They are not necessarily the same.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by santa100 »

I guess it depends on how we apply rebirth to our daily practice. MN48 and DN1 shows the wrong way of applying rebirth: just using it for mere talk and speculation; MN117 shows the correct way of application: actually using the right view to help carry out the practice of the 8NP..
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

vinasp wrote: However, I do not think that passages where the Buddha talks about devas, to
people who already believe in them, constitutes "affirming the existence of"
such devas.
So are you saying the Buddha didn't himself believe in devas but taught about them anyway? Or that he knew they didn't exist but still taught about them? That seems to be the logical conclusion of what you're saying.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

daverupa wrote:
SN 22.79 wrote:"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by [aggregates]. But in the past I was also chewed up by [aggregates] in the same way I am now being chewed up by present [aggregates]. And if I delight in future [aggregates], then in the future I will be chewed up by [aggregates] in the same way I am now being chewed up by present [aggregates].' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past [aggregates], does not delight in future [aggregates], and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present [aggregates]."
Here, indifference and non-delight are attitudes taken towards things that are insignificant, it seems to me. Perhaps we can see in this an instruction which guides from rebirth-view to right-view?
Taking the sutta as a whole this looks like a reminder to be mindful in the present as a means of developing insight into the 3 characteristics, and not to be distracted by speculation about the past and future.

Spiny
Last edited by Spiny O'Norman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Goofaholix wrote:Annihalation means simply annihalation.

I guess it means nothing usually identified as "me" continuing on in some form or other after this body dies, other than as food for words.

No continuation of any of the aggregates in some form or another, no force of becoming or kamma creating a new process.
That's how I understand it. In which case holding an annihalationist view must include a denial of rebirth and the realms. So if annihalationist view is wrong view, then rebirth denial must also be wrong view?

Spniy
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The process through which we come to believe something is rather obscure.
Most of us cannot simply believe whatever we like. Nor can we make ourselves
believe something just because someone else says that we should believe it.

All such pressure on people to believe something actually does is to make
people say that they believe it, when in fact, they do not.

Try making yourself believe that the earth is flat. Can you do it?

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

vinasp wrote: The process through which we come to believe something is rather obscure.
I agree, but it seems to me the process through which we come to disbelieve is also rather obscure.

Spiny
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by santa100 »

Actually one doesn't believe just for the sake of believing. One believes so s/he could put it into practice. Believing in a flat earth won't help one achieving anything. Believeing in rebirth (or at least keep an open mind about its possibility) opens up great opportunities and potentials for one's own practice. At the very least, it helps one thinks twice before commiting any unskillful deeds, thus is a very skillful mean to help maintaining one's sila. And this is the gist of what the Buddha said in His Safe Bet Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). And indeed the wisest course is to place one's bets with Him.. :smile:
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by vinasp »

Hi Spiny,

Quote:
"That's how I understand it. In which case holding an annihalationist view must include a denial of rebirth and the realms. So if annihalationist view is wrong view, then rebirth denial must also be wrong view?"

On that reasoning, the eternalist view entails belief in rebirth and the realms.
So if the eternalist view is wrong, then affirmation of rebirth must also be
wrong.

Regards, Vincent.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by daverupa »

piotr wrote:Hi,
daverupa wrote:Here, indifference and non-delight are attitudes taken towards things that are insignificant, it seems to me. Perhaps we can see in this an instruction which guides from rebirth-view to right-view?
It is a practice towards disenchantment in order to cease future becoming, i.e. to stop rebirth.
Future becoming is not, now, a source of dukkha for me - the only possible contact therefrom is actually via the aggregates which I can imagine now as being in the future, but those images I am to renounce (per SN 22.79 - up to and including aspirations that merit generate a heavenly/superior future becoming). It is only the aggregates which I can recall/imagine in the past, but those I am to be indifferent towards, irrespective of whether they appear to be from an earlier life or not. The present aggregates receive the practice of awareness and mindfulness, and this does not require rebirth-view to manifest.

The key issue is that rebirth doesn't require affirmation or denial when it comes to Dhamma practice, while motivation and gladness and energy, et al, are required, and in fact they are clearly indicated as being so required throughout the Suttas.

---

I think the problem has become clarified, and I will phrase it this way: an error is made by equating positions of honest epistemological assessment with positions of persistent eel-wriggling.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

Post by nowheat »

rowboat wrote:
nowheat: I am not asking for a generalized statement that "it's part of the noble eightfold path" but where specifically it says one must accept the actuality of the next world to have right view.
One example is found in MN 117:
...And what is wrong view?[/b]'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
Note that Wrong View is not "doubt" about another world, it is a DENIAL. I agree that it goes against the Buddha's teaching to deny something we cannot KNOW because we have no direct experience of it.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
Note that this is the first of the "two sorts" of right views, and the one described just above is the TAINTED right view (effluents/asava); it is the one that results in further acquisitions of the aggregates, which is why the [of becoming] gets inserted -- it fosters belief in self. This is not the view the Buddha teaches us leads to liberation. The OTHER right view, the one "without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" is the one the Buddha teaches as his method.

So while acceptance of "the other world" is right view when compared to wrong view (it has better results in terms of moral action), it is not something one HAS to have to be on the path, and in fact it is counterproductive (effluents/asava/acquisitions).


:namaste:
Post Reply