Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

[Goofaholix]

It means not being given to speculative soul theories.

That's a good way of putting it, that's the danger of putting undue emphasis on this particular aspect of the teaching.

[mikenz66]

Could we discuss what that would mean in practice?

It means not being given to speculative soul theories.

OK, thanks for your clarification of your interpretation. I"m not convinced that it is always as simple as that, but I'd have to think a bit to come up with anything concrete about my reservations.


Mike

[Nyana]

I am taking "rejecting the actuality of the next world" to mean that the opposite is necessary: "accepting the actuality of the next world". But if you mean "holding the dogmatic view that there cannot be a next world" then we are agreed. If you mean "accepting the actuality of the next world" then I would like to know where the Buddha says that accepting its actuality is necessary. 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.

Equivocation about the actuality of the next world is a wrong view. DN 1:

• Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'
  
  Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation: Is there no world beyond? Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond? Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?

It's impossible to simultaneously hold a wrong view and right view.

[mikenz66]

Could we discuss what that would mean in practice?

It means not being given to speculative soul theories.

OK, thanks for your clarification of your interpretation. I"m not convinced that it is always as simple as that, but I'd have to think a bit to come up with anything concrete about my reservations.

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...).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

a nihilistic denial of kammic consequences, an "It's all just speculative soul theories, so, no worries..."

Someone could deny the efficacy of kamma, but then that would involve wilfully ignoring what the Buddha taught about kamma.

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later, and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

I see no necessary connection between "not being given to speculative soul theories" and "it's all just speculative soul theories, so, no worries...".

As I see it, it's simply a matter of what you bring to mind and what you don't. You mention kamma and as I understand it, kamma and its effects can be discerned without recourse to speculation - in fact, such speculation would serve as a hindrance to doing actually discerning the causal relationship between kamma and vipaka for oneself (as one would necessarily be substituting observation with speculative thought and recourse to a "subject" to whom vipaka occurs).

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi Nana,

Quote:

"The Buddha affirmed the existence of gods and higher realms."

I agree, but I suspect that my understanding of "gods" and "higher realms"
is different to yours.

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.

You may as well say that parents who talk about the tooth fairy to their
child, must therefore actually believe in the reality of the tooth fairy.

Regards, Vincent.

[piotr]

Hi,

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.

You may as well say that parents who talk about the tooth fairy to their
child, must therefore actually believe in the reality of the tooth fairy.

The Buddha doesn't speak words which are untrue but endearing to others (MN 58).

[mikenz66]

I see no necessary connection between "not being given to speculative soul theories" and "it's all just speculative soul theories, so, no worries...".

No worries for you then...

Since the Buddha certainly talked about past and future (but advised not seeing a self in any of it) I don't really buy the "only things verifiable in the present moment are significant" interpretations. It's possible that Interpretations that tend to label anything to do with past or future, or anything not currently directly verifiable as "speculative" may well be a form of nihilism, and a convenient way of dodging some difficult issues. I'm not saying you are doing that, I'm speaking generally about my unease with such interpretations.


Mike

[daverupa]

Since the Buddha certainly talked about past and future (but advised not seeing a self in any of it) I don't really buy the "only things verifiable in the present moment are significant" interpretations.

Something quite interesting on this point:

"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?

[vinasp]

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.

But a few discourses, such as MN 117, say things like:

"There is this world, there is the next world, ... this is right view .."

Does this mean that some teachings contradict others?

Regards, Vincent.

[piotr]

Hi,

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.

[Nyana]

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).

[piotr]

Hi,

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.

[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]

Is this the same as the materialist view?

Is this the same as the nihilist view?

They are not necessarily the same.