Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

[Kare]

"With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful."

Do you believe this?

[Nyana]

Theravādins who have gone for refuge in the three jewels have a number of reliable sources for ascertaining valid knowledge:

• 1. the Pāli Tipiṭaka
  2. the written & verbal testimony of noble persons
  3. inferential perception
  4. direct perception

Unfortunately, though, #1 and #2 constitute reliance on authority, which is not at all a solid basis for ascertaining valid knowledge. Authorities who are right on some questions can be mistaken about others.

If one has gone for refuge in the three jewels and has practiced their teachings faithfully and accurately for a sufficient number of years, and if the dhamma has demonstrated reliability and veracity on a number of points, it is possible to accept the three jewels as reliable sources of valid knowledge regarding instruction in all essential practice injunctions required for full awakening. And these injunctions include instruction on right view.

Claims made from direct experience ("I saw it myself, and this is what I saw!") can also be unreliable, even when the witness is reporting their experience in good faith. They may have misinterpreted their experience or made some cognitive error. Similarly, inferences can be faulty.

Yes, of course. This is where the aid of a knowledgeable and skillful teacher is helpful. Otherwise there can be blind spots which can remain unknown and unacknowledged.

One should not, however, surrender his or her critical thinking skills or encourage other people to do so. That would be harmful and unwise.

Agreed.

[Nyana]

"With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful."

Do you believe this?

It doesn't matter what I believe.

[Lazy_eye]

If one has gone for refuge in the three jewels and has practiced their teachings faithfully and accurately for a sufficient number of years, and if the dhamma has demonstrated reliability and veracity on a number of points, it is possible to accept the three jewels as reliable sources of valid knowledge regarding instruction in all essential practice injunctions required for full awakening.

In that case, there is a stage of practice at which agnosticism -- in the "weak" form which Daverupa cited in another thread -- would be appropriate. As you suggest, it may take years of dedicated practice and study, all the time testing the dhamma's reliability and veracity, before the necessary degree of conviction is reached.

Until then, one would have to say "it is currently not possible for me to know whether rebirth is true". That's different from saying "it is impossible to ever know" or "no, rebirth is definitely not true" -- both of these positions clearly being incompatible with the dhamma as it has come down to us.

[Nyana]

In that case, there is a stage of practice at which agnosticism -- in the "weak" form which Daverupa cited in another thread -- would be appropriate. As you suggest, it may take years of dedicated practice and study, all the time testing the dhamma's reliability and veracity, before the necessary degree of conviction is reached.

Until then, one would have to say "it is currently not possible for me to know whether rebirth is true". That's different from saying "it is impossible to ever know" or "no, rebirth is definitely not true" -- both of these positions clearly being incompatible with the dhamma as it has come down to us.

Agreed. As I mentioned the other day on another thread, if someone has a sincere interest in Buddhism then I think they should be willing to keep an open mind on the question of rebirth, and at least accept that this is a significant teaching of the Buddhadhamma, even while they remain agnostic themselves.

On a related note, one of the trends that I've noticed over the years is that there is a certain significant subset of Westerners who are drawn to the Pāli dhamma and Theravāda who are more comfortable with the rational, analytical, and objective perspective than with the intuitive, holistic, subjective perspective. And it's sometimes the case that people who highly value rationalism are suspicious of the more visionary, subjective perspective. But I think both aspects are equally valuable and it's worthwhile -- even necessary -- to work towards integrating both. Awakening requires developing the optimal mental qualities for practice, both cognitive and affective, the rational and the visionary.

[LonesomeYogurt]

This thread has really confused me. I thought most people considered atheism to be a rejection of a supreme being or God, which Buddhism clearly espouses. Being an atheist and being irreligious are two different things. Even if I believe in rebirth and other realms and all that, I'm still an atheist if I reject any deity. Even belief in Devas doesn't rule out atheism so long as you consider them to be transitory phases, essentially like other dimensions, which I feel is the correct Buddhist understanding. Stephen Hawking believes in other universes too and he's an atheist.

[Nyana]

This thread has really confused me. I thought most people considered atheism to be a rejection of a supreme being or God, which Buddhism clearly espouses. Being an atheist and being irreligious are two different things. Even if I believe in rebirth and other realms and all that, I'm still an atheist if I reject any deity. Even belief in Devas doesn't rule out atheism so long as you consider them to be transitory phases, essentially like other dimensions, which I feel is the correct Buddhist understanding. Stephen Hawking believes in other universes too and he's an atheist.

Atheism isn't limited to rejection of a creator God or monotheistic deity, and so on.

[LonesomeYogurt]

Atheism isn't limited to rejection of a creator God or monotheistic deity, and so on.

Then wouldn't the best term for what you're saying be "secular" or "irreligious?" Those have stricter definitions that would include ruling out rebirth, etc.

[Kare]

"With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful."

Do you believe this?

It doesn't matter what I believe.

Very true.

[Nyana]

Then wouldn't the best term for what you're saying be "secular" or "irreligious?" Those have stricter definitions that would include ruling out rebirth, etc.

Well, there are a few related issues. The wrong view already quoted earlier in this thread includes atheism, materialism, and moral nihilism. Regarding atheism, Arvind Sharma, Buddhism and Atheism:

• Because it posits the existence of devas, original Buddhism cannot be considered an atheistic religion in the broad sense.

Alfred Bloom, Buddhism and Atheism:

• Buddhism is not, therefore, atheistic in the modern understanding which developed in the West as a reaction to theistic Christianity.

Michael Martin, Atheism and Religion:

• To the extent then that atheism consists in the denial of the existence of god or gods Buddhism is not technically atheistic, since what it really questions is not the existence but the significance of god or gods.

[nowheat]

...if someone has a sincere interest in Buddhism then I think they should be willing to keep an open mind on the question of rebirth, and at least accept that this is a significant teaching of the Buddhadhamma, even while they remain agnostic themselves.

I sincerely practice and study Buddhism, and have an open mind on the question of rebirth.

The problem is that when I read the Pali canon, I find the Buddha is not talking about literal rebirth. I find he is using it as a structure that is useful to make his points on several levels simultaneously, and that this use of rebirth is consistent with the whole of his dhamma. I recognize that a part of me wants to believe in rebirth, and that part of me wants the approach that is Theravada to have an accurate understanding of what the Buddha taught, and for that understanding to be factually accurate. But when I read the canon, I am struck by the clarity of the Buddha's message, which is that we should stick to what we are certain of -- certain through repeated personal experience that has been thoroughly examined for the possibility that there may be underlying clinging to self that charges our interpretation of those experiences; certain because our experience and understanding is backed up by the wise (which I do not take to be limited to those of one school of thought).

Because it seemed as though what I was reading was in conflict with what the ancient schools were telling me the Buddha taught about rebirth, I began studying non-Buddhist works from around that time, to get a feel for the way people expressed ideas about rebirth and other grand issues, expecting this to make it clearer where my misunderstanding lay, make it clearer that the Buddha was talking about literal rebirth, but it had the opposite effect: it made his layering of meaning even clearer. What I expected to have happen, didn't.

I understand the structure of the Theravadin interpretation of buddhadhamma, and how it hangs together, and I keep an open mind that what is described in there might be factually accurate. Meanwhile, I have yet to find evidence that couldn't be described in other ways.

I would think that if someone has a sincere interest in what the Buddha taught, they would be willing to keep an open mind about the accuracy of the interpretation we have been handed, and to be interested enough to try to actually understand what's being said, rather then spending a lot of time decrying it without giving it a full hearing. After all, what we have had handed down to us, and particularly the interpretations of it, were handed on not by the originator, but by mere humans, many of whom may have had less insight than the originator, and all of whom certainly had less of the original context than the originator had.

[Nyana]

I sincerely practice and study Buddhism, and have an open mind on the question of rebirth.

Right on.

The problem is that when I read the Pali canon, I find the Buddha is not talking about literal rebirth.

And other people, even without recourse to the commentaries, find that he is.

I would think that if someone has a sincere interest in what the Buddha taught, they would be willing to keep an open mind about the accuracy of the interpretation we have been handed, and to be interested enough to try to actually understand what's being said, rather then spending a lot of time decrying it without giving it a full hearing.

Yes, well, I can assure you that this subject forces me to step outside of my comfort zone. It's an aspect of dhmma that I have always been quite happy to avoid discussing. But the dhammavinaya is much more than a few modern materialist and secular trends.

[Goofaholix]

I wonder if the "natthika-di??hi" of the Buddha's time was a much stronger "view" than the re-birth skepticism that some Theravada Buddhist of today have.

According to the definition i posted on page 1 most definately.

[mikenz66]

I would think that if someone has a sincere interest in what the Buddha taught, they would be willing to keep an open mind about the accuracy of the interpretation we have been handed, ...

Very true. As I said in another thread, it's claims that someone has either proved or rejected particular interpretations that I think is completely bogus. This evangelistic certainty is the problem I see with many modern interpreters, who inflate their otherwise interesting opinions into a crusade to show that some particular way of looking at the Canon clears away the "unnecessary" parts and gives us the "true way". That the Commentators and other have got it completely wrong for 2500 years, but now we have rediscovered the truth.

Many modern scholars, teachers, and practitioners are quite capable of discussing problems of interpretation and practice without rejecting other views as nonsense. In fact, almost anyone I meet off-line does that.

I have another observation. A huge straw man that some hoist when these issues arise is "appeal to authority". Now, unless you think that the only thing Dhamma is good for is bit less stress in your life. I.e. if you take seriously the Buddha's claim that the end of dukkha is possible, then, unless you are an ariyan, you are appealing to authority. So accusations of "appeal to authority" are, I'm afraid, beside the point. Why read any suttas at all if you reject "appeal to authority"?

As I said above, I'm disappointed that Geoff chose to use the particular words he did. I think that the rejection of annihilationism and nihilism in the suttas is a more intersting thing to discuss than the definition of atheism. However, this thread brings out some very interesting issues and is a nice change from the usual "rebirth" threads...


Mike

[Goofaholix]

There are no Buddhist atheists. It's a contradiction in terms. Alan Wallace, Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist:

So by that I can only assume that by choosing the title that you did you intended to label the people the OP is about as "non-Buddhist", I strongly suggest nobody has the right to do that.

When you look at the history of tolerance and mingling of ideas over the last 2500 such a need to ex-communicate sincere people that may think differently from you is absent, such an attitude is uncharacteristic of Buddhists.

Nāstika in this context means not believing in the authority of the Vedas.

Correct, so another lame duck point you made.