Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Can I be a buddhist and believe that there's an absolute reality?
This question has been bugging me for ages. I am very much attracted to the ideals of buddhism , its noble precepts but not to the ideas of "no-self" "no absolute reality" which I think are the grounding for buddhism.
Does it follow that to be a buddhist one has to become an atheist?
Does it follow that to be a buddhist one has to become an atheist?
0
Comments
These are interesting words. What do you mean by them? Regarding no absolute reality, I am not sure what you are saying.
Regarding absolute truth or ultimate reality, the Buddha taught all conditioned things are impermanent, unreliable & not-self. Not-self means things are not yours, they do not ultimately belong to you.
Does my explanation conform to your understanding?
Further, as I asked, for clarification, please explain what you mean by "no self" and "no absolute reality".
Then we can possibly enter into a deeper discussion on your question.
Thank you
DDhatu
What then would be the point of undertaking the journey?
You are the pilgrim and what is the point of the pilgrimmage if one cannot get lost in the great immensity that is life along the way. A pilgrim is a messenger and what the pilgrim carries is a gift, not a detailed map. No, it is the merchant and the traveller who carry that.
The wanderer and the pilgrim already know the direction to go and mind not the burdens or delays of their sojourning. It is all for Joy that they proceed, not for any monetary or grasping value.
Namastate!
I, like Dhamma Dhatu, would first need to know what YOU understand of these terms, before being able to expand and offer input.....
If something is troubling you, it's only natural.... when we discover things that potentially rock our world, it's most unsettling....particularly if we cannot see all of the picture.....
'The grounding for Buddhism', by the way, is to recognise and understand suffering, and to end suffering......
All else is grist to that mill.
Hi Nini,
One does not have to be an atheist to become a Buddhist.
Buddhism means different things to different people. The basic philosophy is the same in all sects of Buddhism: that we are encouraged to make considered choices in our daily lives to maximise good consequences while minimising bad consequences.
However, one of the reasons why different sects of Buddhism exist is because of a difference in the belief of how the world came about and the interpretation of why people should do good rather than evil.
Some people choose to believe in science and do not need any reason to believe that people should do good. They accept that the world is as it is and that it is just ideal human nature that we do good and so they may choose to be atheist.
Other people are unsatisified with the scientific explanation and require additional beliefs to explain why were are here and motivation for why people should do good rather than evil. To some, the belief in an endless cycle of reincarnation and karma provides the explanation and motivation.
To others, the belief in creator gods and the notion of heaven and hell is the motivation.
Others may choose a more agnostic approach and only consider the Buddhist philosophy in a similar manner as the atheist, but remains undecided as to how the world came about. They understand that there is actually no way to prove or disprove any of the beliefs on our origins and so choose not to speculate.
To the atheist and agnostic camps, Buddhism is no more than a philosophy - a way we can choose to live our life. To the other two camps, Buddhism is more of a religion - a way we must live our life to achieve some religious objective (whether it is a better rebirth or entry into Heaven). Under the general umbrella of Buddhism, there exists people from all camps.
Thus, if you believe in a "self" and an "absolute reality", it just means that you belong to a different camp compared to someone who claims that there is "no self" and "no absolute reality".
As a final note, just bear in mind that when discussing religious and philosophical matters, the semantics of our words can often change the meaning of our interpretation. You and I may interpret words such as "reality", "self", "god", "religion", etc differently. Thus, sometimes, even though it may appear you disagree with someone, you may in fact be arguing about the same thing.
Regards,
V
But your understanding/definition of "absolute reality" and "no-self" really are important here before anyone can clarify things for you.
You will notice, from the contributions above, that a definition of "Buddhism" is also needed. Your question, of course, challenges the assembly because we hold many different views of what Buddhism is - or is not. Few spectacles are more unedifying than that of dogmatic or doctrinaire Buddhists.
That having been said, there are some who opine that there is an 'ultimate reality', giving it many names. Masao Abe speaks of Shunyatta in such terms, whereas Longchenpa called it "universal creativity".
The opinion that there is a 'ground' does not, in itself, deny the contingency (or 'non-self') of all phenomena which arise, possibly 'from' it.
As my friend Nirvana says, those of us who have chosen the pilgrim way often walk in a "Cloud of Unknowing". We also tend towards a deep arrogance which declares: "I have chosen to search. I may be walking in entirely the wrong direction, according to all around me, but it is the way that I have chosen." We like that young soldier whose mother remarks, as he marches past with his regiment, "They're all out of step except my boy!"
Many people will want to tell you that there is or is not "an absolute reality" but, in the end, interesting as all their words may be, we have our own garden to cultivate. We may, or may not, ever find out but I recommend the view along the way.
"God" is an essence. "No God" is also an essence.
Atheism is atheism - Buddhism is Buddhism. If Buddhism were atheism, then there would be no need to designate the term "Buddhism" - one could just say "atheism". Buddhism is gnostic - it is spiritual. Atheism is not spiritual - it is agnostic.
There is the absolute reality of Buddhism - it is called emptiness (shunyata) which is the vast, bright, naturally abiding, spontaneous, transcendent wisdom (prajnaparamita), joy, liberation (moksha), inconceivable, infinite perfection of all things - it is not what should be confused with "atheism".
Atheism is only posited in contradistinction to "theism" - but Buddhism is neither theism nor atheism. The absolute reality (dharmadhatu) of Buddhism is the unborn, undying supreme reality (paramartha) of all things in the universe, which transcends time and space. It is unspeakable, ineffable, vast, profound, unthinkable, wonderful, astounding, triumphant, fulfilled (siddha), naturally pure and spiritually amazing.
This absolute reality is not even Buddhism - it transcends all names and thoughts. It should not be confused with atheism, which is merely the negation of theism. Theism is generally taken to be the view of the monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Atheism is merely the rejection of such views. Without theological concepts, atheism is meaningless.
But Buddhism is beyond rejecting or accepting, and its meaning and intent is not conceived with reference to any other view - in the absolute reality revealed in Buddhism, there is nothing that could be accepted or rejected, added or taken away, understood or misunderstood. It is fully perfected from the primordial (adibuddha), which has no beginning or end. It transcends ideas of life, existence, nonexistence, pain or pleasure. It is the amazing, brilliant, resplendent truth (dharma) of all Buddhas, the spiritual goal (artha) of all sentient beings. If it is anything of the conventional descriptions of religiosity, it would be called gnosticism, since it is the view of transcendent knowledge (jnana) (transcendent knowledge = gnostic).
However it is not the same as the gnosticism of the Western gnostic tradition which is rather vague and still tends to retain the parlance and shadows of theology - hence Christian gnosticism, Jewish gnosticism, etc. And nor is it the poly- or pantheism of Hinduism/Brahmanism/Vedantism, in that Buddhism does not teach the absolute reality of an external existence. Still, it holds all the superlative perfections of the Buddha, and all the marvellous deeds of enlightening and saving sentient beings. It neither lays claim to nirvana, nor does it linger in samsara; it is neither Buddhism, nor is it anything other than the faultless, pure view of the supreme Buddhist way (mahayana).
The absolute reality of Buddhism is not posited with reference to anything at all - whatever phenomena (dharma) that arise and are apprehended, just as they appear to the mind , that there is the absolute reality, without adventitious views, thoughts, ideas (kalpa), words and actions (karma). The mind that recognises this pure, primordial, nonconceptual (nirvikalpa) reality is the enlightened mind (bodhicitta) which is naturally (prakrti), spontaneously inherent (anabhoga/svayambhu) in all things.
It is far from theism, and it is equally far from atheism. It is gnostic, but it does not cling to gnosticism, as it is nothing but the phenomena that arise and abide and vanish, which abide in the great emptiness which is the radiant, calm, supreme bliss, perfection, and compassion of all Buddhas, the mind of perfect equipoise which has not arisen, and does not decay. It is thusness (tathata), the true aspect of all characteristics, which bears a singular aspect, that of non-aspect. It does not declare self, nor does it declare non-self; similarly, it does not proclaim an absolute reality, nor does it lack the character of absolute, definitive reality (tattva).
It is nothing to compare with atheism, which is merely the negation of, primarily, monotheism.
There is, indeed, an absolute reality in Buddhism. But is not a concrete, externally existing thing outside of the naturally occuring enlightened mind which is beyond time, space, thought, action or word.
The vast, inconceivable, and wonderful enlightenment which is innate (sahaja) in all beings, which is emptiness and compassion (shunyata-karuna) indivisibly united, is the unique teaching of the Buddha. It is far from atheism. It is called the Great Symbol (mahamudra), and the Great Perfection (mahasamadhi or dzogchen).
Either way, I must remind members that it would appear that the OP has not been a long-time student of Buddhism, so I would request you keep responses to an 'beginner' level, and attempt to address the question directly, in relatively easy terms, for a beginner to follow.
I'm sure that if I am incorrect in my assumption that the OP (Nini, to date, one and only post) is a 'novice-Buddhist' they will inform me, and I shall happily stand corrected.
Lotus Buddha, your long and detailed answer is very interesting - but completely off-topic.
Nini never made any enquiries or allusions to atheism or theism, or even agnosticism.
Please stick to responding to the OP's enquiry (as you quoted her post) and not spinning off at a tangent into areas which frankly, are nothing to do with the question.....
Well, she did, actually: "Does it follow that to be a buddhist one has to become an atheist?"
But everyone was kind of waiting to find out what was meant by "no-self" and "absolute-reality." I mean, Lotus might have answered her question (although his answer is extremely difficult to follow), or he might have misunderstood her question and only confused her more.
So she did.
but it simply struck me as a bit of an over-done response....;)
Sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks a lot for your enlightening words.
And don't worry that some of the answers may not be on the begginer's level, even as I may be a newcomer to buddhism.
I am somewhat familiar with the concepts and even the terms used by the respondents because I have been a student of the puranas for quite a while.
From some of the answers, I gathered that I can adapt some practices/concepts of buddhism to enhance my spiritual practices, specifically in the area of meditation.
My life revolves around the idea that there is an ultimate reality; that there is a ground of all being and we are simultaneously one and different with it beddha abeddha or advaita dvaita. Thus I am a theist.
I come here specifically to know something about meditation and its "techniques" and find a place in Oz where I can sit and do my own thing.
To tell the truth I sometimes prefer your sanga than the sanga of my community.
Kind regards
Palzang
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Buddha
Palzang