How to teach Mindfulness of Death to atheists?

[dhammapal]

Hi,

The purpose of Mindfulness of Death (marananussati) as taught in the Mountain Simile sutta is to maximize one's Dhamma practice, right conduct, skillful deeds, meritorious deeds, considering the rarity of a human birth and how destructive death is to everybody.

Do you think Mindfulness of Death should be taught to atheists, people who are convinced that there is automatically no suffering after death? Would it encourage hedonism? I think it could wake people up from assuming they will live for an indefinite period into the future, to take a more tentative, playful and pragmatic attitude to life and let go of quarrels and mundane future desires, worries and fears.

Thanks / dhammapal.

[Ben]

Greetings Dhammapal

It might be easier to teach people who are avowed atheists (secular)-mindfulness meditation. If that piques their interest they might be inclined towards someone such as Stephen Bachelor (Buddhism without Beliefs) and from there - who knows?
I tend to think maranasati is probably way too confronting for most people - Buddhist or non-Buddhist.
kind regards,

Ben

[James the Giant]

Do you think Mindfulness of Death should be taught to atheists, people who are convinced that there is automatically no suffering after death?

No. No freakin way.

Would it encourage hedonism?

Yes. From my experience of being an atheist for the last 20 years or so, definitely yes.

"If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
1 Corinthians 15:32

And this, from the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Look not above, there is no answer there;
Pray not, for no one listens to your prayer;
NEAR is as near to God as any FAR,
And HERE is just the same deceit as THERE.

But here are wine and beautiful young girls,
Be wise and hide your sorrows in their curls,
Dive as you will in life’s mysterious sea,
You shall not bring us any better pearls.

[lament]

I thought the purpose of death meditation was to help realize the impermanence of the body, so that the meditator is forced to stop identifying with it and clinging to it. This seems beneficial regardless of one's beliefs.

[LonesomeYogurt]

I think impermanence of the body meditation would be far more helpful than death meditation.

[lament]

Oh sorry, didn't realize they were not the same thing and didn't actually read the sutta
Still, awareness of death seems better than ignorance of it, for anyone. Why promote ignorance?

[darvki]

Would it encourage hedonism?

To assume so would give atheists far too little credit, in my opinion.

[LonesomeYogurt]

Oh sorry, didn't realize they were not the same thing and didn't actually read the sutta
Still, awareness of death seems better than ignorance of it, for anyone. Why promote ignorance?

Awareness of death meditation has a specific role within the larger framework of the Buddhist worldview; to teach it without the accompanying emphasis on the repeated rounds of rebirth not only strips the meditation of its context but also introduces in many cases a nihilism that does not aid in practice.

[James the Giant]

[daverupa]

Teaching mindfulness of death in the context of rebirth is not going to be skillful discourse with an atheist. For those cases, the quote in my signature is a useful approach - there, the headman is perplexed over competing cosmological and ethical claims, and the Buddha offers a long discourse on the matter. It is noteworthy that the view of rebirth elsewhere described as right view with effluents is here lumped together with it's opposite, and both are set aside as unhelpful speculation in this case.

[kirk5a]

Teaching mindfulness of death in the context of rebirth is not going to be skillful discourse with an atheist. For those cases, the quote in my signature is a useful approach - there, the headman is perplexed over competing cosmological and ethical claims, and the Buddha offers a long discourse on the matter. It is noteworthy that the view of rebirth elsewhere described as right view with effluents is here lumped together with it's opposite, and both are set aside as unhelpful speculation in this case.

However, that sutta says that wrong view has to be abandoned first. In this thread, "atheists" as described by the OP are "people who are convinced that there is automatically no suffering after death." That is wrong view.

If I was having a conversation with such a person, I'd try to get them to explain what basis they have for that conviction, and whether that's really certain. If someone acknowledges the uncertain foundation for their own view, then they might be in a position to take up the "lucky throw" practice described in that sutta.

[daverupa]

In this thread, "atheists" as described by the OP are "people who are convinced that there is automatically no suffering after death."

Those aren't atheists then, those are annihilationists. Quite different, even if these views are blended in many minds.

[James the Giant]

...then they might be in a position to take up the "lucky throw" practice described in that sutta.

May as well accept Pascall's Wager and become a Christian, on that basis. The Lucky Throw is invalidated by modern pluralism. Which religion to bet on?

[kirk5a]

...then they might be in a position to take up the "lucky throw" practice described in that sutta.

May as well accept Pascall's Wager and become a Christian, on that basis. The Lucky Throw is invalidated by modern pluralism. Which religion to bet on?

Pascal's Wager is supposed to lead one to "believe in God." That sutta is describing following the precepts and practicing metta - developing "concentration of the Dhamma," not taking up a speculative religious belief. A concentration which, as it says, requires abandoning wrong view first.

Also, the religious pluralism of ancient India is precisely the reason for the Buddha teaching that sutta to the perplexed person described there.

[lament]

Well, speaking as an annihilationist...

1) My belief in annihilationism is quite unshakable. I can't really see any way I could change or destabilize it. If there was anything in the suttas that could do it, I would probably have found it by now.

2) I can testify that meditation on death does not make me a hedonist. It's balancing. It promotes mindfulness and momentary awareness. It certainly doesn't make me want to break precepts or do actions inconsistent with the noble eightfold path. The alternative, which is really feigned ignorance, seems childish and unhelpful. So that's some anecdotal evidence.

I agree with darvki, you are giving atheists/annihilationists too little credit here.

[kirk5a]

Well, speaking as an annihilationist...

1) My belief in annihilationism is quite unshakable. I can't really see any way I could change or destabilize it. If there was anything in the suttas that could do it, I would probably have found it by now.

What's the last thing you observed being annihilated?

[whynotme]

Well, speaking as an annihilationist...

1) My belief in annihilationism is quite unshakable. I can't really see any way I could change or destabilize it. If there was anything in the suttas that could do it, I would probably have found it by now.

2) I can testify that meditation on death does not make me a hedonist. It's balancing. It promotes mindfulness and momentary awareness. It certainly doesn't make me want to break precepts or do actions inconsistent with the noble eightfold path. The alternative, which is really feigned ignorance, seems childish and unhelpful. So that's some anecdotal evidence.

I agree with darvki, you are giving atheists/annihilationists too little credit here.

Dear lament,

I am quite confident in using modern concepts and science to shake people's faith in annihilation, if people are serious about it. This trick I was learned and developed myself when I was converted to Buddhism. But most people are atheists by feelings, traditions or faith, when hearing reasons, they don't understand or accept it. For some reasons, I am only concentrated on my practice, not interested in convert others unless they are close, important to me. IMO most people here already see it by their wisdom so you aren't see any such a basic discussion, but faith in annihilation isn't something unshakable if one has an open mind.

I think it is called open dhamma here, so for your benefit, you can challenge any Buddhism's view if you like

Regards

[lament]

Dear lament,

I am quite confident in using modern concepts and science to shake people's faith in annihilation, if people are serious about it. This trick I was learned and developed myself when I was converted to Buddhism. But most people are atheists by feelings, traditions or faith, when hearing reasons, they don't understand or accept it. For some reasons, I am only concentrated on my practice, not interested in convert others unless they are close, important to me. IMO most people here already see it by their wisdom so you aren't see any such a basic discussion, but faith in annihilation isn't something unshakable if one has an open mind.

I think it is called open dhamma here, so for your benefit, you can challenge any Buddhism's view if you like

Regards

Hi whynotme, I really enjoy your posts! Like you, I'm concentrated on practice and not interested in converting anyone or in being converted myself. Of course, I like to think that I'm open-minded, but it's not like I actively want to change my beliefs. So I don't really wish to discuss this.
I posted here because the topic is teaching mindfulness of death to atheists, and I'm one, so I feel I can contribute with first-hand knowledge.

[LonesomeYogurt]

What's the last thing you observed being annihilated?

The last thread to derail into a debate about rebirth, I'd say.

To get this back on topic, I want to make it clear that I wasn't disparaging atheists or saying that they will turn to hedonism if taught about death. I'm simply saying that meditation on death exists, in Theravada, not as a singular entity but as one part of a larger worldview. It doesn't function well on its own, at least in my mind.