W. Buddhism is based more on Atheism-materialism than Dhamma

[Goofaholix]

This seems like a useful summary, though I haven't yet had time to read it in detail. I think it's important in this discussion to distinguish between a materialist view (which the Buddha rejected) and a theistic creator-god view (which he also rejected). In a Western context "atheist" tends to mean a materialistic view that rejects a creator god. It's not clear to me what exactly the OP means by Atheism-materialism and it would be useful to clarify.

It's a false dichotomy, there are all kinds of views between one exxtreme and another and a-theism does not necessarily mean materialism.

The thing is Buddhadhamma works in all kinds of contexts and with all kids of views provided that the view doesn't dominate or become an irrelevant distraction.

If the ancient Indian were told to leave their cultural and philsophical baggage at the door first then Buddhist practice wouldn't have spread, if the westernerner were told the same it wouldn't have spread to the west.

[mikenz66]

It's a false dichotomy, there are all kinds of views between one extreme and another and a-theism does not necessarily mean materialism.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. They are two views need to be considered separately.


Mike

[Ceisiwr]

It's a false dichotomy, there are all kinds of views between one exxtreme and another and a-theism does not necessarily mean materialism.

Indeed! Someone can be an atheist because they are a deist

[pulga]

Sinhala Buddhism has assimilated Vishnu into its cosmology, only that it doesn't take him to be eternal. But I wonder a bit whether that really matters. If there is a god that rules over you -- as well as a whole host of lesser gods who have influence over your life -- a god with a lifespan beyond human comprehension, just how significantly different is that from theism? God is a concept as is the world, but we don't go about denying the existence of the world.

[culaavuso]

Sinhala Buddhism has assimilated Vishnu into its cosmology, only that it doesn't take him to be eternal. But I wonder a bit whether that really matters. If there is a god that rules over you -- as well as a whole host of lesser gods who have influence over your life -- a god with a lifespan beyond human comprehension, just how significantly different is that from theism?

Is the path of practice based around individual effort for the sake of release from samsara, or is the path of practice based around ritual and appeasing that god for the sake of personal gain in this or a future life? That would seem to provide a significant difference. The Buddha spoke of devas and Brahma and a whole host of lesser gods that are not eternal but have lifespans and power beyond human comprehension, yet he taught a path of practice to transcend even the state of those deities since they too were still caught in samsara and subject to birth, aging, illness, and death. It doesn't seem to me that adding Vishnu into that mix fundamentally changes the message.

[Mkoll]

This is the general refrain that I get from Western Buddhism/Consensus Buddhism...It is more interested in asserting that its practice is based on atheism and thereby engendering a worldview tinged with negativity , rather than asserting that its worldview bases itself off the very rich philosophy and metaphysics provided for by the Dhamma

If you can't specifically define:

Western Buddhism/Consensus Buddhism
Athiesm-materialism

then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What is the purpose of your post? What are you trying to achieve here?

[barcsimalsi]

This is the general refrain that I get from Western Buddhism/Consensus Buddhism...It is more interested in asserting that its practice is based on atheism and thereby engendering a worldview tinged with negativity , rather than asserting that its worldview bases itself off the very rich philosophy and metaphysics provided for by the Dhamma

I wonder what ajahn chah really mean by this:

Buddhism in the east today is like a big tree which may look majestic, but can only give small and tasteless fruit. Buddhism in the west is like a sapling not yet able to bear fruit, but having the potential to give large, sweet ones.
http://www.ajahnchah.org/pdf/no_ajahn_chah.pdf

[Shaswata_Panja]

Western Buddhism and consensus Buddhism is the Buddhism that has been forged by Western Converts who want to overlook the supernatural or paranormal claims of the Buddha (that is all claims that donot conform with scientfic materialism) and basically cut out the core aspects of Buddhism that have to do with rebirth and kamma and other realms and other worlds..Western Buddhism also has a decidedly anti-ritual, anti-celibacy,anti-renunciation and anti-monasticism slant to it...the biggest teachers of Western Buddhism are decidedly non-monk such as Jack Kornfield,Joseph Goldstein,Gil Fronsdal

Buddhism as practiced by the lay people of Sri Lanka is quite pro-ritual


David Chapman has fleshed this out in his Wordpress blog

I wanted to get a view whether Western Buddhism sees the things that I have mentioned as non-essential? and can Western Buddhism survive by cutting such things out of the Buddhadhamma


Western Buddhism tries to make an assertion that Buddhism is a religion based on atheism when IT IS NOT...Okay It does not have a Creator God..big deal ..But surely acknowledges other realms, rebirth,kamma, superpowers,ghosts,angels and huge plethora of other things of the same supernatural ilk....

Now a religion that incorporates such elements will be NOT be seen as an atheistic religion by the New Atheists or to btter define it--scientific materialists

[pulga]

Is the path of practice based around individual effort for the sake of release from samsara, or is the path of practice based around ritual and appeasing that god for the sake of personal gain in this or a future life? That would seem to provide a significant difference. The Buddha spoke of devas and Brahma and a whole host of lesser gods that are not eternal but have lifespans and power beyond human comprehension, yet he taught a path of practice to transcend even the state of those deities since they too were still caught in samsara and subject to birth, aging, illness, and death. It doesn't seem to me that adding Vishnu into that mix fundamentally changes the message.

I fully agree with you. But the Buddha also taught a lesser path that leads to heaven and away from hell. If some Buddhists put greater emphasis on this lesser path, I don't begrudge them considering themselves followers of the Buddha. Atheism is too hard a concept to attribute to Buddhism, too alien to Indian popular culture.

[Shaswata_Panja]

Is the path of practice based around individual effort for the sake of release from samsara, or is the path of practice based around ritual and appeasing that god for the sake of personal gain in this or a future life? That would seem to provide a significant difference. The Buddha spoke of devas and Brahma and a whole host of lesser gods that are not eternal but have lifespans and power beyond human comprehension, yet he taught a path of practice to transcend even the state of those deities since they too were still caught in samsara and subject to birth, aging, illness, and death. It doesn't seem to me that adding Vishnu into that mix fundamentally changes the message.

I fully agree with you. But the Buddha also taught a lesser path that leads to heaven and away from hell. If some Buddhists put greater emphasis on this lesser path, I don't begrudge them considering themselves followers of the Buddha. Atheism is too hard a concept to attribute for Buddhism, too alien to Indian popular culture.

The only atheist school in India is the Charvaka/Lokayata school which is extremely popular with Indian Leftists and Communists--Buddha went hammer and tongs against this school in MN 60


This school is basically an Indian Scientific Materialist School and asserts that with death, existence ceases and says the mendicants and ascetics who are hankering after spiritual knowledge are basically fools

They take inspiration from a certain Brihadarayanaka Upanishad line:


Springing forth from these elements itself
solid knowledge is destroyed
when they are destroyed—
after death no intelligence remains.



In the SarvaDarshanaSamgraha (Collection of All Philosophies)--a 14th century work--Charvaka tradition is given the lowest position among all Indian Philosophies

[Ceisiwr]

Western Buddhism and consensus Buddhism is the Buddhism that has been forged by Western Converts who want to overlook the supernatural or paranormal claims of the Buddha (that is all claims that donot conform with scientfic materialism) and basically cut out the core aspects of Buddhism that have to do with rebirth and kamma and other realms and other worlds..

My experience of "western buddhism" has been quite different. In my experience "western buddhism" mostly accept's the concept of rebirth post mortem as being an essential part of Buddhism, while some do not. Its a mixed bag just like "eastern buddhism", if there is such a thing ...

Western Buddhism also has a decidedly anti-ritual, anti-celibacy,anti-renunciation and anti-monasticism slant to it...the biggest teachers of Western Buddhism are decidedly non-monk such as Jack Kornfield,Joseph Goldstein,Gil Fronsdal

And "eastern buddhists" dont have families? I would say there maybe a more anti-ritual slant, however cutting away some of the dead wood cant hurt (or at least opening up questions about which rituals are proper).

I wanted to get a view whether Western Buddhism sees the things that I have mentioned as non-essential? and can Western Buddhism survive by cutting such things out of the Buddhadhamma

Well I can only speak for myself but I can see some benefit in ritual, as along as its not seen as essential. I can see the helpful aspect of having rebirth view, although I dont see how its essential to have it to be a "Buddhist" (others though from the west would disagree with me).

I think celibacy is good however

So you see there is a mixed bag in myself, not just in "western buddhism". I find generalisations never are accurate descriptions.

Western Buddhism tries to make an assertion that Buddhism is a religion based on atheism when IT IS NOT...Okay It does not have a Creator God..big deal ..But surely acknowledges other realms, rebirth,kamma, superpowers,ghosts,angels and huge plethora of other things of the same supernatural ilk....

The mistake is on your part here as you equate atheism with materialism, however it just does not follow. A person can have no belief in gods etc yet believe in some kind of supernaturalism.

Also I have never come across a "western buddhist" who says that Buddhism is "based on atheism".

I would also like to add that belief in "ghosts, angels" etc is not necessary to Buddhism IMO, yet i'm not a materialist either

Now a religion that incorporates such elements will be NOT be seen as an atheistic religion by the New Atheists or to btter define it--scientific materialists

Yet buddhism is "Atheist" by certain definitions, for example it doesn't teach belief in an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God. Therefore it is A - Theist (theism being all knowing, all loving God etc)

[Shaswata_Panja]

The only atheist school in India is the Charvaka/Lokayata school which is extremely popular with Indian Leftists and Communists--Buddha went hammer and tongs against this school in MN 60

So, the Buddha and the following Indian Buddhism and the doctors of the various schools of Indian Buddhism taught theism?

Well I told you Buddha in my eyes taught theism (not theism as in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God)...Theism here covers all sorts of supernatural claims and concepts....like the assertion that there is life after death--this will definitely not qualify as atheism in front of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Denett or Lawrence Krauss

[Ceisiwr]

The only atheist school in India is the Charvaka/Lokayata school which is extremely popular with Indian Leftists and Communists--Buddha went hammer and tongs against this school in MN 60

So, the Buddha and the following Indian Buddhism and the doctors of the various schools of Indian Buddhism taught theism?

Well I told you Buddha in my eyes taught theism (not theism as in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God)...Theism here covers all sorts of supernatural claims and concepts....like the assertion that there is life after death--this will definitely not qualify as atheism in front of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Denett or Lawrence Krauss

No theism means, at least to those influenced by the Abrahamic religions, a belief in an all powerful creator of the universe and of humans, who not only created us but cares for us and has laid down certain rules for us on how to live so as to reach him/her/it after death.


Once again your mixing Atheism with materialism. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, rebirth, animism or whatever.

[mikenz66]

...
David Chapman has fleshed this out in his Wordpress blog

I wanted to get a view whether Western Buddhism sees the things that I have mentioned as non-essential? and can Western Buddhism survive by cutting such things out of the Buddhadhamma
...

Here's the blog:
http://meaningness.wordpress.com/catego ... -buddhism/
Here is a small sample:
http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... g-visions/

Mixing up contradictory approaches causes trouble

All three approaches have fed into Consensus Buddhism. However, it has not reconciled their contradictions. These conflicts lead to specific, predictable patterns of trouble:

The main practice of Consensus Buddhism is vipassana. This method is meant to shatter the self and break connections. Western Buddhists mostly want and expect the opposite results. Using the wrong tool for the job may produce disappointment, or even serious psychological breakdown.

Mixing up bits of explanation from contradictory systems made Consensus Buddhism conceptually incoherent. To fix the parts of the story that no longer make sense, teachers substitute non-Buddhist Western concepts. Even if those concepts were valid, at some point there is no longer any point in pretending that they are teaching Buddhism.

Westerners want transformation. Buddhism has methods for that, in tantra. Unfortunately, they are politically unacceptable. Instead, Consensus Buddhism substitutes other transformational practices, taken from psychotherapy, the New Age, and Hinduism. These are discordant with Buddhism, and aren’t helpful in pursuing Buddhist goals.
...

Mike

[Shaswata_Panja]

Okay Buddha taught supernaturalism---Supernaturalism and Theism are very closely connected....As I said Buddhism wont stand the test of atheism of the New Atheists