Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by Reductor »

meindzai wrote: When I see "material" with regards to the mind, I assume that means the scientific or physicalist model,

...
So consiousness can not be dependent on matter, since there are beings without any matter whatsoever.

...
-M
It should be noted that I was using the terms material and immaterial in less than a technical sense.

Allow me to launch into a little flight of fancy. If the following is felt by the moderators to be inappropriate, then no hard feelings if its moved or removed.

In regard to this topic, I have to ask: Have you noticed a special version of DO geared toward the immaterial beings (remember link #4, nama-rupa)? So far I haven't, but I admit that my reading is incomplete, and I'm not a scholarly sort. But I have noticed that humans can experience the immaterial realm by the development of different modes of perception (see MN 121), so those experiences are not limited only to the beings existent in these realms. In terms of what humans are composed of, the Buddha described rupa in terms of the four great elements, which is a concise way to view experience (as solid, liquid, energy, motion), but is far incomplete in terms of modern physics. But still, the applications of that understanding is quite great. As is the list of 31 parts, which is far short of the total parts in the body understood in modern biology. Again, as has been pointed out on this forum time and time again, the Buddha was master of the similie and instruction, and may have been less concerned with imparting to us a flawless understanding of the mechanics involved.

My point is this: the distinction between the three realms may be more a matter of short hand rather than an absolute reflection of reality. Perphaps each realm is labeled more in terms of the primary mode of perception rather than the matter-energy that it is formed from. The actual manner that an immaterial being forms and is maintained, let alone functions, is not spelled out in the canon.

And neither is the full nature of consciousness. While it seems necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is not dependent on a specific beings existence, it is not necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is completely independent of all the universe and the laws therein.

I have to ask, though: if the immaterial realm is really immaterial, then what is it constituted by, if you rule out both matter and energy? And if neither matter nor energy are there, by what means does cause and effect operate?
locusphor
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by locusphor »

Dharma talk from Stephen Batchelor's book tour "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist" Talk begins at 2:02 after introduction by Allan Badiner.

My response: Regardless of how, the mind and the body are hopelessly connected. How so? Via the constant 2-way dialogue between mind & body concerning the judgment of body's sensations. Some are "good" and others are "sub-good." How this happens is anyone's guess, but as an empiricist that these phenomena are attached and interrelated should be plain as day to Batchelor.

But I totally understand Batchelor's reiteration of what I first encountered as Gyges Ring. The paradox is concerning reasons to good if it weren't for fear of a post-mortem punishment or love of an eternal reward? I think Plato's response was Goodness is pursued for no other reason than itself.

@thereductor ... would you say that matter and energy are equivalent? ... e = mc^2?
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by ground »

There is a slight difference between "not knowing" and "rejecting what you cannot know". Caused by frustration about not being able to prove for themselves some tend to take this as reason to reject what they cannot disprove either.

Kind regards
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by Reductor »

locusphor wrote: @thereductor ... would you say that matter and energy are equivalent? ... e = mc^2?
I'm not a physicist, but I believe that's the premise there. In terms of science, it is important to study the smallest details - in terms of mind, it is important to study its habit. In this way you can overturn ignorance and be released from suffering.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by PeterB »

Define " mind".
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by meindzai »

thereductor wrote:
In regard to this topic, I have to ask: Have you noticed a special version of DO geared toward the immaterial beings (remember link #4, nama-rupa)? So far I haven't, but I admit that my reading is incomplete, and I'm not a scholarly sort.
I asked Ven Dhammanando about this once on E-sangha and he actually said that yes, there is a D.O. for formless beings - and in their case it only involves nama and not rupa. This can not be found in the Suttas but I assume it's a perspective adapted from Abhidhamma.
But I have noticed that humans can experience the immaterial realm by the development of different modes of perception (see MN 121), so those experiences are not limited only to the beings existent in these realms. In terms of what humans are composed of, the Buddha described rupa in terms of the four great elements, which is a concise way to view experience (as solid, liquid, energy, motion), but is far incomplete in terms of modern physics. But still, the applications of that understanding is quite great. As is the list of 31 parts, which is far short of the total parts in the body understood in modern biology. Again, as has been pointed out on this forum time and time again, the Buddha was master of the similie and instruction, and may have been less concerned with imparting to us a flawless understanding of the mechanics involved.
As physical science, the four elements are a primitive understanding, but as you indicate the Buddha was not trying to impart a scientific understanding. The four elements are still quite useful in terms of understanding the dhamma, and they serve as appropriate objects of meditation and for developing a perception of anatta.
My point is this: the distinction between the three realms may be more a matter of short hand rather than an absolute reflection of reality. Perphaps each realm is labeled more in terms of the primary mode of perception rather than the matter-energy that it is formed from. The actual manner that an immaterial being forms and is maintained, let alone functions, is not spelled out in the canon.
Yes, it's not really the kind of thing the Buddha spent a lot of time on, but that's primarily because there isn't a whole lot of use for such realms with regards to liberation. Remember that the Buddha's first two meditation teachers attained formless states of meditation - and that the Buddha left these teachers becuase "'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness... reappearance in the dimension of nothingness..."

My understanding is that one attains these meditative states, passes away while in them, and then reappears in these planes. One spents a few jillion years there only to take reappearance again in some other realm (back in the human realm with a 9 - 5 job, as Bhikkhu Bodhi once pointed out).

And neither is the full nature of consciousness. While it seems necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is not dependent on a specific beings existence, it is not necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is completely independent of all the universe and the laws therein.
Depends on which laws you mean! Since materiality is non-physical, physical laws do not apply, newtonian, quantum, string, whatever. All physical laws do is describe what happens in the world of materiality. If by law you mean dhamma, then nothing is exempt.
I have to ask, though: if the immaterial realm is really immaterial, then what is it constituted by, if you rule out both matter and energy? And if neither matter nor energy are there, by what means does cause and effect operate?
I think cause and effect operate by means of cause and effect. I don't see a need for anything else.

-M
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by PeterB »

Hmmmm. I think Batchelor's book is timely.
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by pilgrim »

Between the views expressed by Batchelor and those expressed by the Buddha, to me, there is no contest.
:anjali:
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by PeterB »

Maybe there actually IS no contest. As always it all depends on interpretation.
Speculating about what the Buddha taught about the D.O. of non material beings seems a far stretch to me.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by meindzai »

PeterB wrote:Maybe there actually IS no contest. As always it all depends on interpretation.
I'll accept that sometimes. But I think we might have a different idea of where the barrier lies between intepretation and misrepresentation. Bachelor's claim is that he has literally "deconstructed" Buddhism. He then proceeds to rebuild it in his own image, claiming he is giving us the essence of the teachings, free of those things about Buddhism that make him uncomfortable.

-M
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by Reductor »

meindzai wrote: I asked Ven Dhammanando about this once on E-sangha and he actually said that yes, there is a D.O. for formless beings - and in their case it only involves nama and not rupa. This can not be found in the Suttas but I assume it's a perspective adapted from Abhidhamma.
It is in the Abhidhamma? Its presence there would not mean much to me, I'm afraid.

As physical science, the four elements are a primitive understanding, but as you indicate the Buddha was not trying to impart a scientific understanding.

...

but that's primarily because there isn't a whole lot of use for such realms with regards to liberation.
Oh, I know. If the Buddha considered them essential, I'm sure he would have detailed them to my satisfaction. As it is, I consider these meditative attainments interesting for the level of perceptual control they require in their attainment.

The presence of the immaterial realm in the Buddhist cosmology produces a stumbling block for some materialist minded Buddhists, and I think that's a shame, especially since they're really not integral to the goal. Since the exact nature of these beings is both unspecified in the canon, and because we cannot study them, and because they're not that important really, but still a stumbling block for many, I think it is useful to offer explanations for them outside of the doctrine. I don't want to take a specific material view of them and then stamp that as 'the truth', which people might latch onto with much vigor and to their detriment. But it would soften up this particular 'obstacle' in the acceptance of rebirth, which is important for the proper living of the holy life (as stated by the Buddha somewhere in the MN).
And neither is the full nature of consciousness. While it seems necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is not dependent on a specific beings existence, it is not necessitated by rebirth that consciousness is completely independent of all the universe and the laws therein.
Depends on which laws you mean! Since materiality is non-physical, physical laws do not apply, newtonian, quantum, string, whatever. All physical laws do is describe what happens in the world of materiality. If by law you mean dhamma, then nothing is exempt.
Which laws could I mean? I don't know, 'cause I'm more or less completely ignorant of all but the most rudimentary physic principals. But I don't find it useful, or necessary, to think of consciousness as something altogether apart from the universe.
I have to ask, though: if the immaterial realm is really immaterial, then what is it constituted by, if you rule out both matter and energy? And if neither matter nor energy are there, by what means does cause and effect operate?
I think cause and effect operate by means of cause and effect. I don't see a need for anything else.
Then it is easy for you, where it may not be so easy for others. In the end I'm a big fan of conviction in the Buddha, so its really not a problem for me either way. However, I don't see any need for the immaterial to be seen completely separate from the material. Often in Buddhist scripture duality of any kind is shunned by the Buddha.

But there seems to be certain thinking habits for both religionists/spiritualist and the materialists.

A materialist often takes some described thing and says 'it does not exist, it has not been proven by science'. The bias is that science has already proven everything that is existent as existent, even if understanding of what seems existent is sketchy. They don't accept anything unproven as being possible.

Religionists have often had a trickier bias: they take some principal and determine that it is a spiritual principal and there for separate from material reality, then assert that science cannot prove it. The distinction between spiritual and material is made, seemingly, only because something has already been deemed spiritual, and for no other reason. If there is a scientific explanation, it is suspect, because spiritual things cannot be proven by such means. But is that really the case?

For my part, I'm just trying to avoid these two things. Normally I am not inclined to speculation in such abstract matters.
plwk
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by plwk »

from the Review wrote:In the first part of Confession of Buddhist Atheist, Mr. Batchelor shares the fascinating story of how he came to his conclusions regarding karma and rebirth, and Buddhism in general. As a young man, he ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist monk - one of the first Westerners to do so
I wonder if it would make any difference if he was ordained as a Theravada Bhikkhu... :popcorn:
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by PeterB »

Certainly his experience as a monk under a Tibetan teacher who seems to have combined some fairly superstious views with a very heavy handed approach to teaching, seems likely to have shaped his views. A teacher btw who also made his own opposition to vipassana practise clear.
Bankei
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:40 am

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by Bankei »

Who was his Tibetan teacher?
-----------------------
Bankei
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist

Post by Goofaholix »

Bankei wrote:Who was his Tibetan teacher?
Geshe Rabten
Geshe Thubten Ngawang
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Post Reply