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.
Western atheism and Buddhism
After reading many posts here i'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of western atheists got into Buddhism because Buddhism has no Deity to speak of, unless you class Buddha as a Deity. They had/have a spiritual thirst that needs to be quenched, but they despise the idea of a universal intelligence that has given Divine order and some seem to even dislike the idea of an afterlife and/or reincarnation.
So my question is do western atheists simply choose Buddhism becuase there is no kind of Creator,Source spirit,Observer or God within Buddhism?
So my question is do western atheists simply choose Buddhism becuase there is no kind of Creator,Source spirit,Observer or God within Buddhism?
0
Comments
I'm not repulsed by the idea of god or anything, I simply don't believe it (for reasons I won't go into here). Buddhism doesn't "appeal" to me due to the lack of god. There are other aspects of Buddhism, such as reincarnation, that are comparably unbelievable to me; I choose to ignore those things that I know (personally, for myself) are not true / don't make sense.
Instead, the appeal of Buddhism to me came simply from the fact that so much of what the Buddha said resonates with so much of what I've been able to figure out on my own before I finally read and understood his words. Basically, I choose Buddhism because it makes sense.
I'm not "a Buddhist" however. I simply think Buddha was a genius (or genuinely "enlightened" if you must), and I have a lot to learn from what he discovered (and more particularly, a lot to learn from living and being in the way he suggested). Then again, I also have a lot to learn from what Einstein, Freud, and Jesus discovered (just to name a few), so there you go...
So you see it as Buddha's teachings on how to live are more important than the actual spirituality itself, is that right?
Atheism is not Buddhism, and those who choose Buddhism because it doesn't rumple their atheism will have to face that sooner or later , or they will remain shallow, and many do. God, No-God, is dropped. Beliefs are not trashed, but just seen a beside the point of practice, which is letting go.
I hadn't thought of this before. I'm curious as to where this idea comes from or how you came to believe it?
It's not a direct quote. Something like it has been mentioned before in both Yoga and Sufism. A feeling of being impatient for divine reality to reveal itself, and the need to experience rather than just believe.
I've also studied some differences between exoteric and esoteric spiritual paths and beliefs that helped me come to this conclusion.
I can see it, though I can't recall a sutta where the forces are compared as "which is worse." However, regardless of sutta backing, it seems to me that it takes less force to move a mind that has ignorant humility than a mind which is mired in rational pride. Openness vs closed-ness or whatnot.
Actually, many notions of eternalism persist in some of the moral teachings in Buddhism, where next lives are proposed as a motivator for unsticking yourself now for a merited rebirth... to be hopefully released later along the path.
I agree, but you see comments by people saying 'oh I don't believe that' or on similar subjects 'it's not to be taken litterally they're mental states.'
Where Tillich diverges from what is being discussed above is that his theology is also about "radical separateness" as a quasi-mystical experience as compared with the "mystical union" experiences discussed above.
My personal experience comes from a position of very hard atheism with zero intention of changing. As I started to make sense of Dharma I started to change. It was gradual, and almost embarrassing to me!:)
I think anyone who spent the time to understand The Four Noble Truths, whatever their religion or not, they would inevitably see their truth. In a sense they more fundamental than the is there a god or not kind of questions.
An atheist can always doubt their beliefs on "no god", but I don't see how they could doubt Dharma once it starts to seen:)
namaste
I recall reading and discussing a Sutta where the Buddha says developing an attachment to the absence of Self leaves one in a more difficult predicament than the initial attachment to Self. Maybe one of you Sutta savvy folks knows of this? Still, as you say, if not backed by Sutta, it can be seen. It is surely better to be a droplet of the eternal, than a sex machine who knows a bit of poetry, even if both views burn off in practice.
I didn't choose Buddhism because it didn't have a Deity (remember, I was still anti-theist at the time), but because the teachings really resonated as true for me. I was into New Age, so I really had to shed some of my beliefs and mindset, but it's because Buddhism made rethink these things.
.
Yes I did have a look. He has some interesting ideas and i've bookmarked Thich Nhat Hanh website.
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style> Yes but does it not take faith that Buddhism will lead you to Buddhahood, knowledge of reality as it truly is, the same reality that Siddhattha Gautama experienced? Up until you reach that experience does it not take faith? As all you have up until then is someone's word and no direct experience of it.
That's interesting, thanks for you response. It make me want to dig up what Thomas Merton said about "blind faith."
It really depends on definitions at the level of faith you're describing. Do you have faith that a calculus teacher will teach you mathematical principles? Yes, but it is through learning the lessons, not faith in the teacher, that you learn. When you compare that to Christian notions of faith, where believing in the sacred qualities of the teacher brings you to the goal... you come to that mismatch of terms. Not that its 'bad', but you might be more prone to ignore the lessons if you think that faith in the sacred guru is the purpose...
With warmth,
Matt
In some measure, yes. They tend to choose Buddhism because...hmmm...I forgot why I got into buddhism...oh, yeah !...because it offers "the end of suffering" as Buddha said.
The thing is, that atheists find this religion better than others ( talking about abrahamic ones) because it does not promote violence. On top of that , it offers the keys to ending the violence (be it outside or inside of your own being), and one's suffering.
Well, more like I see the Buddha's teachings on how to live as being synonymous with the so-called spirituality. He pretty much said-so himself. He got (seemingly) annoyed at people who kept pestering him about meta-physical questions; why? because those questions and their answers are outside of the truth of our existence on this planet. The important bits of what the Buddha had to say stood on their own, regardless of the answers to those god-style questions.
So does Christianity and Islam. They offer eternal happiness which is an end to suffering.
I personally have not experienced much suffering in my life, so that wasn't a reason at all why I came to Buddhism. Coming from a philosophical background, I found Buddhism to be the most advanced philosophy with a great insight on phenomenology, ontology, consciousness, personal identity, existential issues, ethics, and the nature of reality.
Um, no, that's not why Atheists favor Buddhism. Dawkins mentioned Buddhism in God Delusion and said that it is exempt from his criticism because it is a philosophy rather than a dogmatic religion with a God. The Atheist, Sam Harris is a borderline Buddhist (he even wrote an article praising the tteachings of Buddha for a Buddhist magazine), and he's drawn to it for philosophical reasons, not because it's non-violent. Mormonism is non-violent, but you don't see Atheists praising that religion.
.
Buddhist practice and the realization it facilitates is outside the experience of these guys.
Yes but you would have to have faith in the teacher unless you were to approach it with trepidation? And is it not easier to learn a sum than reach enlightenment, or even some form of spiritual knowing? The weight of the subject of Buddhism and Buddahood is far greater than a sum, and a lot more trust is needed than lets say a teacher teaching me Pythagoras theorem.
I'm certainly not a Christian, I don't mean faith as accepting Jesus as a personal saviour and because he's divine you can relax in the knowledge that you are going to a better place.
I mean faith encompassing all teachings, that could be quotes, meditations and religious techniques, faith in Buddha himself. Faith in the holy books of any religion or spiritual path. I don't see faith as opposed to learning. Faith implies that some form of trust is needed. If you didn't have faith in someone who is teaching you powerful techniques that can change you psychologically, emotionally, spiritually would you really let them teach you. Most would say no.
Faith that Buddha said what he really said and taught what he really taught even if there is a different type of emphasis in Buddhist teachings than another type of religion. That the oral teachings was kept without corruption and the techniques actually work. You can only trust someone's word that it does until you experience it yourself. If you don't have faith in a technique are you really going to sit there for an hour doing it?
Not simply faith in a deity but faith in the path, with the hope that your faith will one day be rewarded by directly knowing. I don't think Buddhism differs from any other path in that sense.
The example below is by no means perfect and even though you don't really have an exoteric Buddhism the principle from faith to knowing still applies:
Blind Faith – Faith – Knowing or more specifically:
Blind Faith – Faith – Understanding – Knowing
< exoteric <esoteric><esoteric><esoteric>
esoteric > <esoteric>
Exoteric – to know the external parts of a path i.e. scriptures, basic knowledge of techniques without direct experience. (Faith is needed)
Esoteric – to understand and apply teachings (scriptures) and techniques allowing direct experience. (understanding and knowing takes over from faith)
I believe everyone whatever path it is starts with faith, and as the path unfolds to them more knowledge is revealed to them through direct experience until that knowledge becomes a part of themselves.
Peace
<esoteric></esoteric></esoteric></esoteric></esoteric></esoteric>
I understand, nice take on things.
I'm suprised I thought more people would have said yes I wanted Spirituality without God. Although perhaps they're not answering lol.
Quite a turnaround then
I don't think God is an issue... what I'm reading in the replies is basically atheism and theism are opposite sides of the same clinging.
As far as your discourse on faith, I'm unsure of the intention behind your rhetoric. Yes, opening to listen to any teacher is an act of 'faith'. The reason I likened a buddhist teacher to a mathematics teacher is because I see reality as a series of simple equations, that when taught, can be put into practice. The results are not mysterious, they are direct and penetrating... so the notion of faith very quickly becomes moot as one begins to experientially relate to the lessons.
Enlightenment is far off, sort of, for many... yes, so the path is longer. However, once you're on it, you know it, and the end is something you can see clearly... or more directly stated, you can see when you cannot see, and therefore know right where you are on the path.
It doesn't take faith, it takes practice. However, one might consider the ability to change from old patterns of action to new patterns of action an act of faith. Most that I witness consider it shifting with the development of an epistemic wisdom, rather than a leaping into a void. Learn the teaching, see the path, take the step... not the other way around.
With warmth,
Matt
It's also become a passive sort of thing for me, in that I don't actively go out and expend energy and thought trying to prove the nonexistence of god either... I think that part of Buddhism has kind of rubbed off on me to where I realize that in the end, it doesn't much matter. The point is how you live your life and how you affect those around you. God and giant mounds of jello are irrelevent.
As far as why I got "into" Buddhism... I simply read about it and found it interesting, and wanted to learn more. I didn't think there was anything "missing" in my life, although now I realize how much the few teachings I have learned have helped me. I just sort of fell into it, really. Happy coincidence!
However, to answer your original question, my experience is probably a lot different from other atheists. There are probably as many reasons for atheist buddhists as there are atheist buddhists...
Atheism denies the existence of God; non-theism deems the whole debate irrelevant.
If you want a clear-cut one-size-fits-all answer from this lot, you're not going to get it.
With Metta,
Guy
Agree with you here. Buddhism has no real dogma. One other aspect that attracted me to buddhism was , as you pointed out, the philosophy. I got attracted to buddhism after reading some books written by Mircea Eliade ( the only man in the world who made a history of all major religions), that dealt in some measure with emotional detachment and so on. The fact is , that Mircea Eliade was really attracted to hindu religion and philosophy, but somehow managed to add in his books some aspects that can only be found in buddhist philosophy.
About atheists giving credit to buddhism...I can say that I'm not a true atheist until I read and understand God Delusion
Hi Richard,
The only sutta I can think of is the Ananda Sutta.
I shall keep searching to see if I can find another one.
Nios.
Sabbasava sutta; all the fermentations - "I have a self/I have no self"
Kalaka Sutta; Kalaka's Park
Alagaddupama Sutta; Water-snake simile - Importance of right view and non-clinging
Taken from here;
Nios.
One of the things I liked about Buddhism was that it didn't require belief in God. It's hard to generalise though.
P
This Sutta you quote gets to the point. Theism and Atheism are just eternalism and nihilism large-sized. The description of Buddhism as Non-theistic is more accurate. Having it placed in the the Atheist "camp" is unfortunate and waaaay off the the mark. IMO.
I recall something similar. However I honestly can't remember where I read it, and searching the suttas is a bit of a needle in a hay-stack!
But I agree with you non-the-less.
Nios.
I was raised in the practice of yoga, which is strongly devotional and theistic. I switched to Buddhism for reasons that had nothing to do with ideas about theism or atheism. And I initially found it very hard to give up my attachment to the thought that there was an ultimate power that I could appeal to ... for things I wanted to have or have happen (including enlightenment).
Sometimes I miss that safe little thought, like a child misses momma's lap. Tough.
This reflects my experience as well...
Mysticism for want of a better word has some of the most logical beliefs and scientific practices. Simply put the people who close their eyes and cut off the external senses and focus inwards as a part of there many practices to experience true reality, and not just read what reality is, may be deemed as to be on a mystical path. If I was to say logical spiritual path that may cause offence.
Exactly as you put it so eloquently it is a transitional period, as you practice things that are unknown to you become known, it is as if the knowing unfolds to you. Even still there a things that I took in faith 5 years ago that I still have to take in faith and many things that have been revealed to me that I now know that no longer has to be taken in faith, from faith to knowing.
exactly! Throw away faith! There is no need for faith when as you put it This was my point from the start.
It sounds like we agree but our meanings of words or the way I presented them didn't sound right to you. That's why words can be so confusing, the feelings that arise from one word in one person can be very different in another. If we were able to communicate emotionally, I feel what you feel, you feel what I feel about a subject. We would be able to come to a much greater understanding than through words. You always end up using a whole paragraph to explain one word, Especially over the internet as we cannot here tonality or see body language.
Peace
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style> lol I know what you mean. Even though I still believe in an intelligent consciousness a source that everything sprouted from, it's a very different idea than a creator God.
The definitions and pointings you offer seem reasonable enough, it does appear we point to the same notion. When it comes to the archetype of developmental process along the path of wisdom, I was meaning that faith is often present, but isn't really necessary, except in the most subtlest shades of the word... such as faith that a lesson in school is knowable, and so you are willing to study. It is faith... sort of, but more in tune with the least potent qualities of the word, rather than a direct burning faith in the perfect wisdom of the guru.
Again, this isn't meant to be in contention with your definitions, but just looking at the qualities.
With warmth,
Matt
NO! My teacher is a Tibetan monk, and if you'ver ever watched Tibetan monks sitting in a group for a long period of time, you will notice that many of them rock as they sit.:crazy:
(Teacher says it's because as young kids in the monastery, they have to sit still for long periods of time and have too much energy to do that.)
Since when does Atheism = Nihilism? Because Atheism has no God? If that were the case, that would default Taoism, Buddhism, and Jainism as Nihilistic. This is not the case, so the position that there is no God has nothing to do with Nihilism.
.
How are those ideas different? You basically just reworded a God that created everything to an intelligent consciousness as a source that everything sprouted from. If the intelligent consciousness didn't create and things actually did "sprout" as you say, then it's no more intelligent than dirt and soul as a source from which plants sprout from.
In Buddhism, we abandon dualism for non-dualism and don't create a dichotomy between mind and matter.
I too, used to believe in a Cosmic Consciousness and even clung to that idea when first getting into Buddhism, but realized that notion had to be abondoned.
.
Once you're aware of the concept of God, you must have an opinion one way or the other. In your case (and mine, and most Buddhists), that opinion is that there is no God. If you think "hmm, yes, heard of this God thing, doesn't really apply to me, not relevent to my life", then you've basically thought about it and chosen atheism.
To conclude: all non-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are non-theists.
Namaste
Sorry Trans. I don't care.
Not necessarily because there is also agnostic to consider.
Basically, the way i see it, it takes positive action to believe in God. Unless you've made that step, you don't beleive in God, whatever particular label you choose to give it: agnostic (still undecided), atheist (decided), non-theist (never considered it).
To an observer who is an intelligent, eternal, timeless consciousness who initiated the universe, who like us is pure spirit, we ourselves are the same source, and as being the same source dare I say equal in nature and also eternal, only the egoistic mind prevents us from knowing our real nature. Being the same source we also have divine power within us, which through practice can be unleashed. An observer who never judges but designed karma, cause and effect, so we only judge ourselves and are answerable to ourselves and will either suffer or find joy through our own actions. And to even be able to create our existence through our own thoughts. A Republic.
I can go on but to answer your question There you have it.