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.
Agnostic Question About Buddhism
Can we still be called a true Buddhist if we have agnostic beliefs? I hope not to offend anyone by asking. I'm fairly new to Buddhism. In detail the question asks if you can be a true follower of Buddha while having agnostic beliefs/
Thanks for replies in advance.
Thanks for replies in advance.
0
Comments
Also - if you take the quite strong version of agnosticism about doubting everything; well, it's a starting point because practicing any of the Buddhist paths involves carefully investigating and assessing the teachings based on your own experience. So, an agnostic Buddhist would merely be a person whom has yet to reach any conclusions or insightful understanding of what they are trying to learn!
If you take the simpler agnostic term - that the person cannot/willnot prove or disprove the existence of a/The/the (g/G)od(s) - this is a strong polarised viewpoint in its own right. Buddhism doesn't 'have' a supreme god of omniscient/omnipotent overlordship of the human race. Buddha was merely just some quite-likeable dude whom had uncovered some exceptionally subtle and true insights into existence, and then decided to try and help others come to realise this truth. Whether or not there are gods is irrelevant to the practitioner - the task of realisation still rests solely in the hands of oneself.
I may have undersold the Buddha somewhat there, but I try and keep the mysticism and too-shiny lacquer from distracting me from his examples
this means it correct the two wrong views of human of either fall into the extreme view of eternalists and the other extreme view of nihilists.
for the eternalists they tends to belief on an essence of life , such as soul / self / God / cosmic consciousness etc
Within the Madhyamika school of Mahayana, candrakirti identifies the self as:
<DL><DD>an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness <DL><DD>-- Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7 </DD></DL></DD></DL>
Said the master, "If you want me to be perfectly honest with you, I will not answer."
Later the disciples demanded to know why he had not answered.
"Because the question is unanswerable," said the Master.
"So you are an atheist?"
"Certainly not. The atheist makes the mistake of denying that of which nothing may be said... and the theist makes the mistake of affirming it.
Excellent quote. Where's it from?
and the nihilists was known as ucchedavāda ( or natthikavāda)
Anthony de Mello, was a Jesuit priest, psychotherapist and writer who became widely known for his books on spirituality. He has a very Buddhist view and I just love his quotes. You can look him up on Youtube.
Here is another: This can be an object of contemplation
If you search within your heart, you will find something there that will make it possible for you to understand: a spark of disenchantment and discontent, which if fanned into flame will become a raging forest fire that will burn up the whole of the illusory world you are living in, thereby unveiling to your wondering eyes the kingdom that you have always lived in unsuspectingly.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anthony_de_Mello
Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor.
"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."
Would a PDF version bother you?
http://www.alexox.com/sangha/StephenBatchelor-BuddhismWithoutBeliefs.pdf
lol this is going into my signature
EDIT: I found an audio book version I could get you, would you be alright with that or would you prefer PDF? I can't guarantee there is a version online (for once haha)
If anyone else is interested just let me know
**HOWEVER** the download might not work or even be what it says it is, and I may have to dig a little bit more if this is so, so be patient with me :poke:
Incredible. I can't thank you enough. very good stuff
Here's my favorite so far. Possibly good for the agnostic..
To a visitor who described himself as a seeker after Truth the Master said, "If what you seek is Truth, there is one thing you must have above all else."
"I know. An overwhelming passion for it."
"No. An unremitting readiness to admit you may be wrong."
something to think about
1) Sassatavada (Pali: "eternalism") is a kind of thinking rejected by the Buddha in the nikayas (and agamas). One example of it is the belief that the individual has an unchanging self. Views of this kind were held at the Buddha's time by a variety of groups.
The Buddha rejected this and the opposite concept of ucchedavada (materialism) on both logical and epistemic grounds. He proposed a middle way between these extremes, relying not on ontology but on causality.
Eternalism included the belief that the extinction of things means their latency and the production of things means their manifestation — this violates the Buddha's principle of the middle way.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP>
Eternalism is one of the corners or limits of the 'Four Limits' (Sanskrit: Caturanta), a particular configuration of the Catuskoti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassatavada
2) According to Brahmajala Sutta, Ajita propounded Ucchedavada (the Doctrine of Annihilation after death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada (the doctrine of identity of the soul and body), which denied the separate existence of eternal soul.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Bhaskar_1972_0-1>[1]</SUP>. The extent to which these doctrines, which were evidently inherited by Lokayata, were found contemptible and necessary to be refuted in the idealist, theist and religious literature of the time is a possible evidence of their popularity and, perhaps also, their philosophical sophistication.
Renowned historian DD Kosambi, who elsewhere<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]</SUP> calls Ajita a proto-materialist, notes<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3]</SUP> that he "preached a thoroughgoing materialist doctrine: good deeds and charity gained a man nothing in the end. His body dissolved into the primary elements at death, no matter what he had or had not done. Nothing remained. Good and evil, charity and compassion were all irrelevant to a man's fate."
" There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds...A human being is built up of four elements. When he dies the earthly in him returns and relaapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to the air, and his faculties pass into space. The four bearers, on the bier as a fifth, take his dead body away; till they reach the burning, ground men utter forth eulogies, but there his bones are bleached, and his offerings end in ashes. It is a doctrine of fools, this talk of gifts. It is an empty lie, mere idle talk, when men say there is profit herein. Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4]</SUP>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali
The Middle Way or Middle Path (Pali: majjhimā paṭipadā; Sanskrit: madhyamā-pratipad; )<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP> is the descriptive term that Siddhattha Gotama used to describe the character of the path that he discovered led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2]</SUP> In this sutta - known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma - the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. This, according to him, was the path of wisdom. The middle path does not mean a mid point in a straight line joining two extremes represented by points. The middle path represents a high middle point, like the apex of a triangle. Thus the high middle point is more value filled than a mere compromise
In Theravada Buddhism's Pali Canon, the very phrase "middle way" is ascribed to the Buddha himself in his description of the Noble Eightfold Path as a path between the extremes of austerities and sensual indulgence. Later Pali literature has also used the phrase "middle way" to refer to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination as a view between the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the Madhyamaka ("Middle Way") school posits a "middle way" position between metaphysical claims that things ultimately either exist or do not exist.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-13>[14]</SUP>
In the Tendai school, the "middle way" refers to the synthesis of the thesis that all things are "empty ( emptiness in nature )" and the antithesis that all things have phenomenal existence (provisional temporary existence ) .<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-14>[15]</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way
i thought i didn't know before. now i know i don't know.
i guess the idea is that once we think we got something figured out, we shut down to all other input and thus stunt our ability to learn, grow and mature.
while those samana hermits where out to the forest to find the truth , went the other direction that denied all moral and value of our existence, and became materialist .
The Buddha carefully study both those schools of thought and was enlightened to the reality that both of their extreme view were false , therefore we sufftered.
there is some natural universal prinicple in our phenomena and mind, that govered us, but that not soul or higher creater , it is just part of the natural law of cause and effect , and interdependency of all things, our subjective mind and our objective phenomena are actually closely related with one another
down with the unjust social system. eventually cause and effect will catch up with it, i reckon. perhaps it already has.
i like that idea that all things are closely related through cause and effect. helps me to put some meaning into my struggles
true, in Buddha Dharma, no efforts in our practices, struggles and good will are wasted, all have it's value and meaning once we realised it ,
not even our slightest moment of thoughts we cultivated have registed in our lifes, also have lasting impact to others and our enviroment we lived in , it also carried into eternity in time and the most remote corner of our universe
hence as they said there is no dead lock in Buddha Dharma
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
i tried exploring this idea on another thread, but you took it to a deeper level, with more significance to the understanding. this is a concept I have been going deeper into for the past couple of years so it's nice to hear it stated by someone else (validation is always agreeable
is this related to that thing you always hear about how the beating of the wings of a moth create a tsunami on the other side of the world, or something to that effect?
have you ever thought that some day parts of you will exist as reverted energy and travel through the galaxy as rays of light from a star?
We don't really know what a "true buddhist" would be. There is an immense, intractable and uncrossable cataract between what the Buddha thought and taught and what we have today as the many variants of "Buddhism".
One thing that seems to unite all Buddhists and schools (There were many more schools soon after the Buddha's time, the Theravadan being the only surviving school before the more recent schisms) is the Four Noble truths, all they contain and are entailed by.
So as is said often on this forum to questions such as yourse, start with The Four Noble Truths and end with them too, the rest is up to you. In fact its all up to you:)
Question it all and "be your own light"
Namaste
From a Buddhist point of view, this is impossible. There are no "parts", no "you", no "reverted energy", no "galaxy", no "rays of light", and no "star".
And from a Buddhist point of view, it's unknowable. Even if Primordial Wisdom were to do that, it would be unknowable and would have no relationship with the situation Buddha addresses regarding our present predicament.
I like E=mc2 and ponder it's significance, but that's another forum.
It makes me think that, since they had no understanding of the Big Bang or evolution 2500 years ago, the Buddha probably believed just as others did, that human beings were created by Brahma.
Ultimately believing in a creator god is irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings on suffering, so I suppose it wouldn't matter if you were a theist, agnostic or atheist.
What do you think?
I am not well enough versed in the Pali Canon to take issue with this, but I wonder if this is true of Classical Pali-based Buddhism. If it's from Mahayana it may be something allegorical that was added later. Can someone clarify this?
as for those seasoned practitioners and scholars who read widely the Buddha's canon ( Nikayas, Agama, Mahayana ), they concluded that the Buddha teachings do based on the capacity and level of cultivation of the audience. There are teachings that based on native beliefs of their time which the Buddha did not refuted directly initially ( be a from Brahmanistic thoughts or those anti-brahmic thoughts of the hermits ) ; and there are teachings that based directly on the Buddha own enlightenment .
As you see, for those who are already preoccupied with their native wrong views, to refute them directly would turn them away, but the Buddha skilfully borrowed their native idea, lead them into his teaching, and redefined their old concepts , and eventually lead them to the truth that the Buddha have realised directly.
So when we read the content of a scriptures we should always keep in mind who are the audience , what capacity and level of cultivation these audience were, if the teachings were based on their capacity or direct from the Buddha etc..
Good article on this topic here.:)