Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
thornbush
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:22 pm

Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by thornbush »

Apostasy: a simple definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is the Buddhist view on this matter? Your thoughts please...thank you :anjali:

Namo Amitabha Buddha!
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Ben »

Its a particularly cute characteristic of abrahamanic religions. Only fundamentalist Islam professes to maintain the traditional punishment of apostasy of inflicting some form of gruesome death on the wayward.
Thankfully, Buddhism is a little more enlightened.

B
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by kc2dpt »

thornbush wrote:What is the Buddhist view on this matter?
I don't understand the question. What is the Buddhist view on "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief"? Uh... sometimes a person decides to abandon or renounce their Buddhist beliefs and/or practice. Deevadatta is an example. :shrug:
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Rui Sousa
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Rui Sousa »

Peter,

I guess :shrug: is an excellent answer... :smile:
With Metta
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by DNS »

The English term apostasy comes from the Latin apostata and means ‘to move away from,’ while the Arabic term riddah means ‘turning back.’ Apostasy is therefore to renounce one’s religion and adopt another or no religion. Buddhism does not have a legalistic approach to belief and thus never developed a concept of apostasy, nor did any Buddhist cultures have such a concept. In Buddhism, the individual is free to believe or not according to his or her own inclinations and understanding. The Buddha’s attitude to apostasy is epitomised by his encounter with a man named Sunakkhatta. He was a disciple of the Buddha, but after a while became dissatisfied with the Dhamma and decided to renounce the Teacher and the teaching. Sunakkhatta came to the Buddha and said; ‘Lord, I am leaving you, I am no longer living by your teachings.’ The Buddha responded to this declaration by asking Sunakkhatta some questions. ‘Did I ever say to you; come, live by my teachings’. ‘No Lord’. ‘Then did you ever say to me that you wished to live by my teachings’. ‘No Lord’. ‘That being the case, who are you and what are you giving up, you foolish man?’ (Digha Nikaya 3. 2-3). Neither in this case nor others did the Buddha suggest that apostates be punished; nor did he say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy.

from: http://www.BuddhismAtoZ.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Buddhism A to Z. by Ven. Dhammika, 2007.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

TheDhamma wrote:Neither in this case nor others did the Buddha suggest that apostates be punished; nor did he say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy.

from: http://www.BuddhismAtoZ.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Buddhism A to Z. by Ven. Dhammika, 2007.
By his own misdirected mind, Sunakkhatta set himself on a course that would inevitably lead to rebirth in hell. The Buddha did not inflict any punishment on him, Sunakkhatta's path was one that he chose for himself. This is what the Maha-sihanada Sutta says regarding Sunakkhatta:

21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.13 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.

The statement “the Buddha did not say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy” is wrong. It was precisely because he denied the Buddha's Enlightenment that Sunakkhatta was destined to be reborn in hell.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Jechbi »

My thoughts: Apostasy always seems to imply some social conduct. It's possible to conceive of private, individual apostasy, where a person goes through a process of self-inquiry and then quietly decides to change religions without announcing it to anyone or engaging others. But that's pretty much never what apostasy means. Instead, it seems to mean the person who publicly "changes sides." So it generally seems to include some desire to sway others, as well. It's probably important to understand all of the different motivations and actions involved in apostasy, since all of them can be different forms of kamma. Thanks for asking.
:juggling:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Individual »

thornbush wrote:Apostasy: a simple definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is the Buddhist view on this matter? Your thoughts please...thank you :anjali:

Namo Amitabha Buddha!
It sounds a bit cliche and fundamentalist Christians say the same thing, but it's definitely true that if you leave Buddhism, you were never a Buddhist to begin with. People who leave Buddhism tend to be what I'd call "fashionable Buddhists".

"I am a Buddhist" -- when it's fashionable.
"I am not a Buddhist" -- how can a Buddhist say either of these things, when there is no self?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
TheDhamma wrote:Neither in this case nor others did the Buddha suggest that apostates be punished; nor did he say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy.

from: http://www.BuddhismAtoZ.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Buddhism A to Z. by Ven. Dhammika, 2007.
By his own misdirected mind, Sunakkhatta set himself on a course that would inevitably lead to rebirth in hell. The Buddha did not inflict any punishment on him, Sunakkhatta's path was one that he chose for himself. This is what the Maha-sihanada Sutta says regarding Sunakkhatta:

21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.13 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.

The statement “the Buddha did not say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy” is wrong. It was precisely because he denied the Buddha's Enlightenment that Sunakkhatta was destined to be reborn in hell.
I agree with Ven. Pesala, except I'm not sure if "hell" here literally necessarily means the naraka realm, but could possibly mean any of the woeful realms. Also, this occurs, not because the "person left Buddhism and became an apostate" (incoherent because of anatta, hence the non-existence of any literal form of conversion or apostasy), but merely the result of cause & effect. Even people who adopt Buddhism superficially, who follow Sunakkhatta's practice their entire lives under the banner of Buddhism, if they don't follow the Buddha's practice of right morality, they are still bound for woeful realms.
Last edited by Individual on Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by DNS »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: The statement “the Buddha did not say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy” is wrong. It was precisely because he denied the Buddha's Enlightenment that Sunakkhatta was destined to be reborn in hell.
:thanks: , Venerable.

But perhaps Ven. Dhammika is referring to Sunakkhatta leaving of the "Buddhist" religion, not about the denying of the Buddha's enlightenment. The denial of the Buddha's enlightenment seems to be much more severe and may not be part of the definition of apostasy:

a⋅pos⋅ta⋅sy
   /əˈpɒstəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pos-tuh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Individual »

TheDhamma wrote:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: The statement “the Buddha did not say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy” is wrong. It was precisely because he denied the Buddha's Enlightenment that Sunakkhatta was destined to be reborn in hell.
:thanks: , Venerable.

But perhaps Ven. Dhammika is referring to Sunakkhatta leaving of the "Buddhist" religion, not about the denying of the Buddha's enlightenment. The denial of the Buddha's enlightenment seems to be much more severe and may not be part of the definition of apostasy:

a⋅pos⋅ta⋅sy
   /əˈpɒstəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pos-tuh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
The Buddhist "religion" existed at that time?

And how do you separate the Buddha's enlightenment from Buddhist religion? That is, how is it possible to adopt Buddhism without believing in the Buddha's enlightenment and how is it possible to reject Buddhism while believing in the Buddha's enlightenment? The two always seem to go together.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by DNS »

Individual wrote: The Buddhist "religion" existed at that time?

And how do you separate the Buddha's enlightenment from Buddhist religion? That is, how is it possible to adopt Buddhism without believing in the Buddha's enlightenment and how is it possible to reject Buddhism while believing in the Buddha's enlightenment? The two always seem to go together.
That's why I put it in quotes; it wasn't called Buddhism, of course, but it was some kind of religion, whatever name we want to attach to it, such as the Buddha-Dhamma, Vibhajjavada, etc.

I don't know, I suppose someone could reject a religion and leave it, but without insulting the founder or leader. For example, many of us left our birth religions, but we don't go back and trash the founders of our birth religions. Maybe it is that distinction that Ven. Dhammika was getting at in that article on apostasy.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by tiltbillings »

What is the Buddhist view on this matter?
It depends upon which Buddhists are being talked about. Where concern about apostasy finds a home is in the Mahayana with sutras that tell you that if you say bad things about them you'll get bad breath and go to hell. Also, the various Mahayana vows that are taken and if broken result in really bad things happening to one. All of that is absent from the teachings of the Buddha in the Pali suttas.
21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.13 Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.

The statement “the Buddha did not say that apostates would go to hell simply because of their apostasy” is wrong. It was precisely because he denied the Buddha's Enlightenment that Sunakkhatta was destined to be reborn in hell.
Horner's translation reads a bit differently (MIDDLE LENGTH SAYINGS): "Whoever, Sariputta, knowing that it is so of me, seeing that it is so, should speak thus: . . . ."

David Evans (DISCOURSES OF GOTAMA BUDDHA: MIDDLE COLLECTION): “If anyone knowing and seeing me thus, speaks (like Sunakkhata) then. . . .

I am inclined to agree with Horner’s translation. Though my Pali is very rusty, it seems to translate it better and is consistent with the text. Basically, Sunakkhata was deliberately lying about the Buddha, not merely disbelieving in the Buddha.

If Ven Dhammando could give MN I 71-2 a look at, it would be appreciated.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Cittasanto »

If the glove fits wear it, if it doesn't don't!

I don't really care if someone does or doesn't believe the same as me, or changes their mind.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Individual »

TheDhamma wrote:
Individual wrote: The Buddhist "religion" existed at that time?

And how do you separate the Buddha's enlightenment from Buddhist religion? That is, how is it possible to adopt Buddhism without believing in the Buddha's enlightenment and how is it possible to reject Buddhism while believing in the Buddha's enlightenment? The two always seem to go together.
That's why I put it in quotes; it wasn't called Buddhism, of course, but it was some kind of religion, whatever name we want to attach to it, such as the Buddha-Dhamma, Vibhajjavada, etc.
My understanding was that it was an informal community, whereas "religion" denotes some level of formality. The student-disciple relationship of ancient India seems identical as in Greece. Socrates' had students and followers -- they merely followed him around and they spoke to eachother. Plato was the same way and they called the place they hung out regularly, "Plato's Academy". Same relationship as with the Buddha. None of this has the same level of formality that today's universities, churches, or any form of organizations do. Sangha literally meant "community".

When the Greeks talk about gods, karma, and there are mystics like Plato and Zeno, I don't understand how anyone could talk of India's sramanas as "religious schools" and Greece's traditions as "philosophical schools", when the two are pretty heavily overlapping.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Ravana
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:33 pm

Re: Apostasy: A Buddhist View and Response

Post by Ravana »

Individual wrote:"I am a Buddhist" -- when it's fashionable.
"I am not a Buddhist" -- how can a Buddhist say either of these things, when there is no self?
I don't think it's a problem, if one accepts the two-truths doctrine. Otherwise, we must also wonder how the Buddha could utter phrases like "Sariputta, when I know and see thus..." - when 'Sariputta 'and 'I' do not exist.
TheDhamma wrote:That's why I put it in quotes; it wasn't called Buddhism, of course, but it was some kind of religion, whatever name we want to attach to it, such as the Buddha-Dhamma, Vibhajjavada, etc.
In the Suttas, we find people who, after hearing a talk by the Buddha take refuge and ask the Buddha to accept them as disciples. Using our modern-day terminology, these are people we would call 'Buddhists'.
Individual wrote:..it's definitely true that if you leave Buddhism, you were never a Buddhist to begin with..
How come? One can only have perfect confidence in the triple gem when one is an ariya. So a non-ariya disciple's confidence can falter and may decide to seek refuge elsewhere.
Individual wrote:When the Greeks talk about gods, karma, and there are mystics like Plato and Zeno, I don't understand how anyone could talk of India's sramanas as "religious schools" and Greece's traditions as "philosophical schools", when the two are pretty heavily overlapping.
I think that's because the two terms belong to two different terminologies, with slightly different meanings. Applying the two terms which originated in two different contexts in a single context is the cause of the problem.
“The incomparable Wheel of Dhamma has been set in motion by the Blessed One in the deer sanctuary at Isipatana, and no seeker, brahmin, celestial being, demon, god, or any other being in the world can stop it.”
Post Reply