a·the·ism
/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
BuddhaDhamma is compatible with both numbers 1 and 2 above. Note the capital G in number one above. Number 2 refers to "supreme beings". There are no "supreme" beings in Buddhism, period.
Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4018
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Theism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Maybe it's true to say that the theistic / atheistic dichotomy is irrelevant to Buddhism.tiltbillings wrote:Theism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Well, the Buddha's teaching certainly is not theistic nor is it atheistic materialism.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Theism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Like anything, it depends upon how these terms are defined.Goofaholix wrote:Maybe it's true to say that the theistic / atheistic dichotomy is irrelevant to Buddhism.tiltbillings wrote:Theism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Well, the Buddha's teaching certainly is not theistic nor is it atheistic materialism.
>> 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
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
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4018
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
We have to exist in the first place before we can be fully extinct, whereas nihilism says we don't exist at all.DarwidHalim wrote:Parinibbuto means 'fully extinct'.
What is the exact difference between 'fully extinct' and nihilism?
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17194
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Theism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Which effectively makes it atheistic. Because since the Buddha was fully enlightened, he knows for sure if there was/is a Creator-God and he would have spoken about him/her. He would not have kept it a secret.Goofaholix wrote: Maybe it's true to say that the theistic / atheistic dichotomy is irrelevant to Buddhism.
‘Three things shine openly, not in secret. What three? The orb of the moon, the orb of the sun and the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathàgata’ (Anguttara Nikaya I. 283).
He reiterated this same point just before his final passing when he said;
‘I have proclaimed the Dhamma without any idea of a hidden and open teaching. I do not have the closed fist of the teacher who holds anything back’ (Digha Nikaya II. 100).
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Hi Vincent,
The book actually continues with a discussion of the relevant suttas:
Mike
That seems entirely consistent with the suttas. Nibbana is not a realm where arahants go. An arahant is not reborn. Where's the inconsistency with the suttas in that?vinasp wrote: Perhaps I have misunderstood the later Theravada position, I was thinking
of this passage:
From: What the Buddha taught, by Walpola Rahula - online version - Link:
http://www.quangduc.com/English/basic/6 ... ht-04.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Some popular inaccurately phrased expressions like ‘The Buddha entered into Nirvāna or Parinirvāna after his death’ have given rise to many imaginary speculations about Nirvāna. [22]The moment you hear the phrase that ‘the Buddha entered into Nirvāna or Parinirvāna’, you take Nirvāna to be a state, or a realm, or a position in which there is some sort of existence, and try to imagine it in terms of the senses of the word ‘existence’ as it is known to you. This popular expression ‘entered into Nirvāna’ has no equivalent in the original texts. There is no such thing as ‘entering into Nirvāna after death’. There is a word parinibbuto used to denote the death of the Buddha or an Arahant who has realized Nirvāna, but it does not mean ‘entering into Nirvāna’. Parinibbuto simply mean ‘fully blown out’ or ‘fully extinct’, because the Buddha or an Arahant has no re-existence after his death."
The book actually continues with a discussion of the relevant suttas:
Of course, it would be foolish to claim that every pronouncement by every ancient or modern commentator is consistent with the suttas, if only because, as you can see from the discussion on this board, there is no common agreement on exactly what some suttas mean...Rahula wrote:Now another question arises: What happens to the Buddha or an Arahant after his death, parinirvāna? This comes under the category of unanswered questions (avyākata).[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html] Even when the Buddha spoke about this, he indicated that no words in our vocabulary could express what happens to an Arahant after his death. In reply to a Parivrājaka named Vaccha, the Buddha said that terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things-matter, sensation, perception, mental activities, consciousness- with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and up-rooted, never to rise again after his death.[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html]
An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished.[see above reference] Here it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāna, but the ‘being’ composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāna. This point has to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have misunderstood and misinterpreted this smile as referring to Nirvāna. Nirvāna is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out.
Mike
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
If Atheism in a broad sense is defined as the rejection of belief in the existence of deiTIES, then it's kinda tough to clearly label atheists as all good or all bad. There might be atheists who do not believe in the existence of a single almighty creator god and there might be atheists who do not believe in the existence of any kind of god in any non-human realms. So if we are to draw a Venn diagram of "Atheist" and "Buddhist", instead of seeing a complete separation between the 2 entities, there'll be overlapping areas. So, it's not a simple matter. In the case where there're atheists who do not believe in a single creator god NOR in any kind of gods in any realms, and yet they do not kill, steal, commit sexual misconduct, etc.. In that case, there should still be an overlapping "sila" area that is shared between Atheists and Buddhists. Even within the Buddhist circle of the diagram, taking closer look turns out to be that it's actually a sub Venn diagram of sub circles: there're those who only believes in the Elder's Way and dissing Mahayana and Vajrayana as fakes; and there're those who only believes in the Big Vehicle and dissing those Hinyanas as narrow-minded; yet they all believe in the 4NT, 8NP, 12DO, etc...So, it's not a simple matter I guess..
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4018
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Atheism is a-theism the opposite of theism. I don't think anybody is really interested in rebranding Buddhism as a theism.Ñāṇa wrote: To be more clear: Atheism (in the broad sense of the term as already stated), moral nihilism, materialism, physicalism, and so on, are each an unskillful false dhamma. None of them are compatible with the Buddhadhamma.
While deities are referred to in Buddhism in no way are we instructed to worship them or believe in them, they are merely beings trapped in samsara like you and me .
Last edited by Goofaholix on Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4018
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Thanks for that, either works, the main point is to find a middle way between opposite unskilful views.piotr wrote:Atthikadiṭṭhi and atthitā are not the same. First affirms kamma and so on, second affirms atta.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
The term has already been defined earlier in the thread:tiltbillings wrote:That is one defintion, but I rather doubt it is the definition --the only definition, the definitive defintion.
Ñāṇa wrote:Rowe, William L. "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
- [A]n atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology.
Ñāṇa wrote:Atheism isn't just a disbelief or denial of monotheism or a creator God. It is also a denial of gods, god realms, and entails denial of any form of post-mortem existence. The American Heritage Dictionary:
Collins English Dictionary:
- atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
- atheism
Rejection of belief in God or gods.
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
This is a discussion of view, not a judgement of people.santa100 wrote:it's kinda tough to clearly label atheists as all good or all bad.
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
This is a nonstarter. Pointing out that atheism is incompatible with Buddhism doesn't entail equating Buddhism with any form of theism.Goofaholix wrote:I don't think anybody is really interested in rebranding Buddhism as a theism.
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4018
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
The lesson to be learned is that the wise person avoids loaded polarising terminology so as to avoid the terminology being discussed instead of the question posed.Ñāṇa wrote:This is a nonstarter. Pointing out that atheism is incompatible with Buddhism doesn't entail equating Buddhism with any form of theism.Goofaholix wrote:I don't think anybody is really interested in rebranding Buddhism as a theism.
Buddhism is an a-theism in the normal english use of the word.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
The term was chosen for a reason. Buddhism is not compatible with atheism.Goofaholix wrote:The lesson to be learned is that the wise person avoids loaded polarising terminology so as to avoid the terminology being discussed instead of the question posed.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma
Which makes my point. It depends upon how one defines the term atheism. One can say that Buddhism is non-theistic, but that fails to get at the fact that a the idea of an omnipotent, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos has been rejected by the Buddha onwards.Ñāṇa wrote:The term has already been defined earlier in the thread:tiltbillings wrote:That is one defintion, but I rather doubt it is the definition --the only definition, the definitive defintion.
>> 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
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