Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

[tiltbillings]

K.N. Jayatilleke, PhD:

Buddhist Atheism While Buddhism is atheistic, we must not forget that Buddhist atheism has at the same time to
be distinguished from materialistic atheism. Buddhism asserted the falsity of a materialistic
philosophy which denied survival, recompense and responsibility as well as moral and spiritual
values and obligations, no less than certain forms of theistic beliefs. In its thoroughly objective
search for truth it was prepared to accept what was true and good in “the personal immortality
view” (bhavadiṭṭhi) of theism as well as “the annihilationist view” (vibhavadiṭṭhi) of atheistic
materialism: “Those thinkers who do not see how these two views arise and cease to be, their
good points as well as their defects and how one transcends them in accordance with the truth
are under the grip of greed, hate and ignorance … and will not attain final deliverance.” (MN
11.7/M I 65). http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh162.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nowheat]

We are agreed on this. But the thread is fed as much by those who insist that rebirth is or could be real, as by those who deny it. Then those, like myself and many others here, who believe that holding either view is a hindrance, step in and ask everyone to just let go.

I haven't noticed anybody on this thread denying rebirth. This thread is fed by those who insist that rebirth is real and one must hold this view, and those who that believe that holding either fixed view can be a hindrance.

I should perhaps have included more of the original context. The "thread" referenced above is the Great Rebirth Debate, not this thread.

[Nyana]

The Pāli Tipiṭaka is the authority. The ancient Theras are also the authority.

So would it be fair to say that your answer would equate to the second option? I would see the Pali Tipiṭaka, ancient Theras (and contemporary) more as points of reference.

They are sources of refuge.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ñāṇa,

They are sources of refuge.

They can be... but no one necessarily needs to go for refuge to the Theravada doctrine (e.g. Abhidhamma) in order to go for refuge to the Dhamma, for example, much like one doesn't need to go for refuge to Mahayana doctrine in order to go for refuge to the Dhamma.

Metta,
Retro.

[Nyana]

If you cannot see a difference between assessment of likelihood and either determined clinging to a view or eel-wriggling equivocation, nothing I can say is likely to improve the situation.

The canon is quite clear that there actually is a next world. I see no good reason for equivocating over this.

[nowheat]

If you cannot see a difference between assessment of likelihood and either determined clinging to a view or eel-wriggling equivocation, nothing I can say is likely to improve the situation.

The canon is quite clear that there actually is a next world. I see no good reason for equivocating over this.

As far as I know, there is only one sutta that makes it "quite clear" -- MN 60 -- that "there actually is a next world" and, as I have pointed out, the bit that the assertion is in breaks the logic of the sutta. I find the Buddha to be quite logical, and to me the emendation is obvious. But then, it is not my assertion that the entire canon is a completely accurate transmission of the words of the Buddha. I don't find human nature capable of transmitting words with not one single corruption -- perhaps you do.

This, then, is the difference between us, that you will rest your case on the rare instance of a dogmatic statement, set against the rest of the canon in which nonesuch are made.

[Goofaholix]

The canon is quite clear that there actually is a next world. I see no good reason for equivocating over this.

Not disputed,
but in this next world will there be re-aggregation of the aggregates commonly considered "me" together with a new body?
and if so does that have any impact on my practise in this world?
and if so what evidence is there that having a level of uncertainty about how this works and whether it is important excludes me from the Buddhist club in this world?

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Both the eternalist view and the annihilationist view depend on identity
view (sakkaya-ditthi), and cease when identity view ceases.

"As to the various views that arise in the world, householder,
"The world is eternal" ... - these as well as the sixty-two
speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajala: when there is
identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity
view, these views do not come to be." [ SN 41.3 - Isidatta (2) ]

Identity view can be understood as the view of a real, presently existing
self. All views about this self in the future are based on identity view.

Regards, Vincent.

[Nyana]

Buddhist AtheismWhile Buddhism is atheistic, we must not forget that Buddhist atheism has at the same time to
be distinguished from materialistic atheism. Buddhism asserted the falsity of a materialistic
philosophy which denied survival, recompense and responsibility as well as moral and spiritual
values and obligations, no less than certain forms of theistic beliefs.

And it is assumptions of materialistic atheism which feed the qualms and doubts found in Batchelor's Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist and other writings. For example, in his article No Future In A Parrot's Egg:

• I reject karma and rebirth not only because I find them unintelligible, but because I believe they obscure and distort what the Buddha was trying to say.

And in Suspending Belief:

• The idea that there will be something spiritual or subtle, some sort of consciousness that can escape the collapse of the body and brain, is not very credible in the modern scientific worldview.

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike, Dave, all,

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?

Indeed... this is how I understand the Buddha's teaching, having reflected that way.

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.

Fair enough. I hope Dave's choice quote helped allay some of this unease.

Yes, there were some good points there. Including that there is a need to consider what will happen in the future to practice effectively.


Mike

[Nyana]

If you cannot see a difference between assessment of likelihood and either determined clinging to a view or eel-wriggling equivocation, nothing I can say is likely to improve the situation.

The canon is quite clear that there actually is a next world. I see no good reason for equivocating over this.

As far as I know, there is only one sutta that makes it "quite clear" -- MN 60 -- that "there actually is a next world" and, as I have pointed out, the bit that the assertion is in breaks the logic of the sutta. I find the Buddha to be quite logical, and to me the emendation is obvious. But then, it is not my assertion that the entire canon is a completely accurate transmission of the words of the Buddha. I don't find human nature capable of transmitting words with not one single corruption -- perhaps you do.

This, then, is the difference between us, that you will rest your case on the rare instance of a dogmatic statement, set against the rest of the canon in which nonesuch are made.

The passage from MN 60 Apaṇṇaka Sutta is consistent with the rest of the canon, including the knowledges comprising the Buddha's awakening:

• 1. the content of the Buddha's awakening
  2. the first two of the three higher knowledges
  3. the first five of the six higher gnoses

As well as the explicit passages regarding past lives found throughout the Anamataggasaṃyutta. And also the Khuddakanikāya Theragāthā & Therīgāthā where many of the arahant monks and nuns state that they attained either the triple knowledge (tevijjā) or the six higher gnoses (chaḷabhiññā). This is further corroborated by SN 8.7 Pavāraṇā Sutta, which informs us that of 500 arahants present on that occasion, 60 had triple knowledge, 60 had the six higher gnoses, 60 were liberated both ways (ubhatobhāgavimuttā, meaning jhānas & formless attainments), and the rest were liberated through discernment (paññāvimuttā). Therefore, there were many arahants who had direct knowledge of past lives and the passing away and reappearance of beings. DN 2 tells us that these knowledges are fruits of the contemplative life. Thus, the MN 60 statement that a person who says that "There is no next world" thereby makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world is entirely consistent with the rest of the Pāli Tipiṭaka.

[Goofaholix]

And it is assumptions of materialistic atheism which feed the qualms and doubts found in Batchelor's Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist and other writings. For example, in his article No Future In A Parrot's Egg:

• I reject karma and rebirth not only because I find them unintelligible, but because I believe they obscure and distort what the Buddha was trying to say.

• “To say Buddhism is not a religion, is not true. To say Buddhism does not speak of a literal rebirth, is not true. To say Buddhism does not speak of deities and invisible beings, is not true.
  
  “To say Buddhist practice is dependent on these, that we can’t realize tremendous benefit and positive change without them, is also not true.” — Stephen Batchelor

[daverupa]

the knowledges comprising the Buddha's awakening...

As well as the explicit passages [where] monks and nuns state that they attained either the triple knowledge (tevijjā) or the six higher gnoses (chaḷabhiññā). This is further corroborated...

In The Origins of Buddhist Meditation, Alexander Wynne suggests that the simple liberation pericope, below, is the more likely to be historically authentic:

"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

Nothing here about the six higher gnoses, and the first two of the three high knowledges are also absent...

[Nyana]

Alexander Wynne suggests that the simple liberation pericope, below, is the more likely to be historically authentic.... Nothing here about the six higher gnoses, and the first two of the three high knowledges are also absent...

Ven. Ṭhānissaro's Introduction pertaining to the absence of reference to the 4NT in this sutta is also relevant to the absence of reference to the triple knowledge.

[nowheat]

• 1. the content of the Buddha's awakening
  2. the first two of the three higher knowledges
  3. the first five of the six higher gnoses

As well as the explicit passages regarding past lives found throughout the Anamataggasaṃyutta. And also the Khuddakanikāya Theragāthā & Therīgāthā where many of the arahant monks and nuns state that they attained either the triple knowledge (tevijjā) or the six higher gnoses (chaḷabhiññā). This is further corroborated by SN 8.7 Pavāraṇā Sutta, which informs us that of 500 arahants present on that occasion, 60 had triple knowledge, 60 had the six higher gnoses, 60 were liberated both ways (ubhatobhāgavimuttā, meaning jhānas & formless attainments), and the rest were liberated through discernment (paññāvimuttā). Therefore, there were many arahants who had direct knowledge of past lives and the passing away and reappearance of beings. DN 2 tells us that these knowledges are fruits of the contemplative life. Thus, the MN 60 statement that a person who says that "There is no next world" thereby makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world is entirely consistent with the rest of the Pāli Tipiṭaka.

There is a next world: it's the one we make along with that which we mistake for self. In the Vedic myths of Prajapati, there was no separation between self and world, they were one and the same. This is what dependent origination is talking about. The poetry of the enlightened nuns and monks should be just full of such references if they understood what the Buddha was saying with that core teaching.

We see what's being said in all those bits you mentioned two different ways. I see what's being said in my daily practice: the arising and passing away of beings according to their actions, my past lives; it's not difficult. Do you see it in yours?