Atheism is an Unskillful False Dhamma

[Spiny O'Norman]

He taught differently to different people depending on where they were at and he used the words, beliefs, mythology, and rituals of his time as teaching methods depending on the worldview of the audience.

That doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of them as fact.

So do you think the Buddha taught things he knew not to be true?

Spiny

[Nyana]

• 1. the content of the Buddha's awakening
  2. the first two of the three higher knowledges
  3. the first five of the six higher gnoses

As well as the explicit passages regarding past lives found throughout the Anamataggasaṃyutta. And also the Khuddakanikāya Theragāthā & Therīgāthā where many of the arahant monks and nuns state that they attained either the triple knowledge (tevijjā) or the six higher gnoses (chaḷabhiññā). This is further corroborated by SN 8.7 Pavāraṇā Sutta, which informs us that of 500 arahants present on that occasion, 60 had triple knowledge, 60 had the six higher gnoses, 60 were liberated both ways (ubhatobhāgavimuttā, meaning jhānas & formless attainments), and the rest were liberated through discernment (paññāvimuttā). Therefore, there were many arahants who had direct knowledge of past lives and the passing away and reappearance of beings. DN 2 tells us that these knowledges are fruits of the contemplative life. Thus, the MN 60 statement that a person who says that "There is no next world" thereby makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world is entirely consistent with the rest of the Pāli Tipiṭaka.

There is a next world: it's the one we make along with that which we mistake for self. In the Vedic myths of Prajapati, there was no separation between self and world, they were one and the same. This is what dependent origination is talking about.

The poetry of the enlightened nuns and monks should be just full of such references if they understood what the Buddha was saying with that core teaching.

We see what's being said in all those bits you mentioned two different ways. I see what's being said in my daily practice: the arising and passing away of beings according to their actions, my past lives; it's not difficult. Do you see it in yours?

What I see is yet another novel and unsustainable re-interpretation of the Buddhadhamma on your part. Ven. Bodhi, Dhamma Without Rebirth:

• [T]o downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.

Alan Wallace, Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist:

• To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

"There are beings who arise spontaneously." Mundane right view MN 117.7

[ I agree that there are such beings.]

"What is spontaneous arising? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous arising."
MN 12.33

[ ... and certain human beings ... ]

"Again, a monk who has abandoned the five lower fetters arises spontaneously
and, without returning from that world, gains enlightenment."
[ Long Discouses, Walshe 1987, DN 6.13]

[ The non-returner, when he breaks the five lower fetters, arises in the
next "world", he does not return to this "world". What is meant by "world"
here is just a state of mind.]

Regards, Vincent.

[rowboat]

What I see is yet another novel and unsustainable re-interpretation of the Buddhadhamma on your part. Ven. Bodhi, Dhamma Without Rebirth:

[T]o downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.

Alan Wallace, Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist:

To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.

[tiltbillings]

Buddhist AtheismWhile Buddhism is atheistic, we must not forget that Buddhist atheism has at the same time to
be distinguished from materialistic atheism. Buddhism asserted the falsity of a materialistic
philosophy which denied survival, recompense and responsibility as well as moral and spiritual
values and obligations, no less than certain forms of theistic beliefs.

And it is assumptions of materialistic atheism

As opposed to Buddhist atheism. Jayatilleke clearly argues for rebirth and kamma. The point is that how "atheism" is used is a matter of how the person who uses it defines it.

(For those who may have missed it, there are six essays in the following PDF that I linked above that are worth a read:

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh162.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

[nowheat]

What I see is yet another novel and unsustainable re-interpretation of the Buddhadhamma on your part.

I understand, very well, why you see it that way. I have yet to lay out the framework that shows what makes it sustainable. Once this paper is published, it will make more sense, at least to those whose minds aren't slammed shut. I find the people on this board to be reasonably open-minded, and so will be interested to see what kind of hearing it gets.

Dhamma Without Rebirth:

• [T]o downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.

To misrepresent what's going on as explaining "the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness" is to demonstrate that one has closed one's mind to a sufficient degree to refuse to see what's actually going on. This is confirmation-bias: not spending enough time actually getting to know the people and their practices and what they discuss and are concerned about so that one can keep believing that they are "other". This is *precisely* what the Buddha describes humans doing with the structure of dependent arising and maybe once the whole thing is out there, we can focus a little more on stilling those particular formations. I'm hoping it means we can all work together instead of having the divisions we have now, but then I'm a starry-eyed idealist that way.

Alan Wallace, Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist:

• To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.

I'm not a materialist, which helps me see that Wallace is just doing to secular folks what he accuses them of doing to Buddhism: rewriting them in an image that suits his world-view. What underlies this? It seems to me -- seen through the lens of the Buddha's teaching -- that it is fear around that sense of self. Having spent a lifetime devoting his energies to one view of Buddhism -- having put so much of himself into it, seeing something in that particular view of Buddhism that satisfies self in him (so that "This is mine, this I am") and taking it as part of him -- he feels so threatened by what seems to him as "other" that he can't even open his mind enough to accurately hear what's being said. From the above comment about "simply ridiculous" it seems that, to him, there is no possibility of any mistake at all -- he would not even care to investigate it deeply enough to see if he is mistaken.

Well, I understand that. It's just human nature. But it's also the point-of-view that never will investigate those lovely and huge volumes of the Buddha's words that we have, so that we can look to see how accurate our understanding is -- fear blocks even the possibility of making an effort; a dogmatic attachment to what we have already learned stands in the way of reading any text any other way. But if we can recognize in these texts just how brilliant the man who started us on this path was -- and if we can acknowledge that his followers were probably not that brilliant, not all enlightened, but just humans with human frailties -- it seems to me that out of respect for the Buddha we should double check our understanding, and look at what's there with fresh eyes. Doing so can (and does) actually result in sharpening our understanding of what he is saying, rather than watering it down. The more open-minded people who apply themselves to it, the clearer things should get. But one has to be willing to *begin* -- to *try* -- to be able to do this. Closed minds learn nothing new.

The canon has been cloistered for thousands of years in a system that is designed to transmit it and its interpretations with as little change as possible. I am thankful for the accurate transmission of the words of the Buddha, but less than thankful for the limitations put on understanding the meaning. There have been some brilliant minds applied to the canon that stood out well enough in their moments to bring fresh insights of their own to it, and I praise them and the moments in which their voices were accepted enough to be heard. But for the most part, the canon has not had a thorough looking over. It needs it. And if we actually have faith in the Buddha, there should be nothing to fear from doing a through and public examination of what's there.

[daverupa]

Alexander Wynne suggests that the simple liberation pericope, below, is the more likely to be historically authentic.... Nothing here about the six higher gnoses, and the first two of the three high knowledges are also absent...

Ven. Ṭhānissaro's Introduction pertaining to the absence of reference to the 4NT in this sutta is also relevant to the absence of reference to the triple knowledge.

The first argument suggests that the Buddha alludes to two events which, since they are found here only in passing, must have been understood by the listeners and therefore those Suttas which have the detailed versions are more likely to be the earlier. Another interpretation, however, is that those episodes were not seen as important at all, and it was only the later hagiographical tradition which, desperate for biographical information, extrapolated and enumerated all manner of embellishments. Now, such embellishment may be wholly or partly factual, incorporating part of a colloquial oral tradition into the recited oral tradition, for example, but this is hardly a clear-cut issue.

The second argument suggests that the absence of the four noble truths does not therefore preclude their having been conveyed at that time, it is simply a matter of the discourse being crafted thematically, so some ill-fitting themes are here left out as they are included elsewhere. This, of course, is possible, but I find the arguments for an early provenance to MN 26 as found in Wynne rather more convincing, especially given that the formulation of the truths as 'noble' is easily shown to be a development (K. R. Norman writes on this) over time, and therefore actually out of place at the first sermon qua "noble". To insist they were present in that form is anachronistic, and lends further weight to the claim that MN 26 is the earlier account while strengthening the claim that such topics as the history of asceticism and the tevijja were originally not seen as comparatively very important.

There's a lot more uncertainty about the particulars, here, than many seem willing to accept.

---

Ven. Bodhi, Dhamma Without Rebirth:

[T]o downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.

"the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness" = in the context of this thread, so this doesn't apply.

As to Wallace: "To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible."

"To ignore" is not what is occurring, "the most compelling evidence" is a subjective assessment, and "replace that by assertions" is not actually going on either, as has been stated ad nauseum.

There is a certain unskillful atheism from the perspective of the Dhamma, this is obviously true; the idea that this atheism encompasses every nuance of view which the term "atheism" can sustain is flatly wrongheaded, and to suggest that any atheism necessarily entails materialism, moral nihilism, and the like is equally incorrect.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Spontaneous arising.

Opapātika: lit. 'accidental' from upapāta, accident; not from upapatti as PTS Dict. has; 'spontaneously born', i.e. born without the instrumentality of parents. This applies to all divine and infernal beings."After the disappearing of the 5 lower fetters (samyojana q.v.), he (the Anāgāmi) appears in a spiritual world (opapātika)

References:

Maha Thera Nyanatiloka. Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Buddhist Publication Society, fourth revised edition 1988.

Regards, Vincent.

[mikenz66]

Hi nowheat,

I understand, very well, why you see it that way. I have yet to lay out the framework that shows what makes it sustainable. Once this paper is published, it will make more sense, at least to those whose minds aren't slammed shut. I find the people on this board to be reasonably open-minded, and so will be interested to see what kind of hearing it gets.

I don't understand why you keep appealing to the authority of something you don't explain.

It would be interesting to hear if you have points to make about dependent origination that have not been explored by teachers and scholars such as Venerables Buddhadassa, Nanavira, and Nanananda, all of whom disagree in various ways with the standard interpretations (though, particularly for Ven Nananda, not so much with rebirth, but with the connection of rebirth with dependent origination).

I am thankful for the accurate transmission of the words of the Buddha, but less than thankful for the limitations put on understanding the meaning.

Are you are claiming that these limitations have prevented effective practice over the past 2500 years? To me, that's the important issue.


Mike

[Nyana]

Well, I understand that. It's just human nature. But it's also the point-of-view that never will investigate those lovely and huge volumes of the Buddha's words that we have, so that we can look to see how accurate our understanding is -- fear blocks even the possibility of making an effort; a dogmatic attachment to what we have already learned stands in the way of reading any text any other way.

Well, I can't speak for Ven. Bodhi or Alan Wallace, but from where I'm sitting it has nothing to do with fear or dogma. It has to do with accurately reading the texts. And in this regard the mainstream Buddhist understanding of the texts isn't mistaken, and therefore, isn't in need of correction.

[Nyana]

There's a lot more uncertainty about the particulars, here, than many seem willing to accept.

Text-critical analysis is speculative. The methodology of textual criticism is not able and will never be able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught.

[daverupa]

There's a lot more uncertainty about the particulars, here, than many seem willing to accept.

Text-critical analysis is speculative. The methodology of textual criticism is not able and will never be able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught.

This is not the goal of textual criticism, so it's rather strange to insist that what isn't its goal is, in fact, not possible for it. It does provide alternative and compelling explanations for various features in the texts, however, up to and including highlighting at least a handful of commentarial/transmission errors and oversights (the odd reading or etymology, the connection of certain phrases with the ideas in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, and so forth).

[Goofaholix]

So do you think the Buddha taught things he knew not to be true?

I think you have to look at each passage as to what the purpose of the lesson is at the time. The Buddha was clear in some passages that he wasn't interested in metaphysics but in others used a lot of metaphysical examples in his teaching.

An understanding of who the audience was he was addressing, the common usage of the words he was using and the wordplay he used based on them, what he was trying to achieve, and what his audience was capable of understanding, all play a part.

I think it's a very judeo christain worldview that dictactes that anything to do with religion must be interpreted in an obtuse way even though we are used to using our intelligence in all other fields.

So no I don't think the main lesson of any of his discourses were ever what he knew not to be true, I just don't think he would have expected that in 2500 years people would have been so obtuse as to not be able to differentiate between the important message and the background information.

[Nyana]

This is not the goal of textual criticism, so it's rather strange to insist that what isn't its goal is, in fact, not possible for it. It does provide alternative and compelling explanations for various features in the texts, however, up to and including highlighting at least a handful of commentarial/transmission errors and oversights (the odd reading or etymology, the connection of certain phrases with the ideas in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, and so forth).

Yes, that's what textual criticism can offer. Interesting, sometimes helpful, but quite limited.

There's a lot more uncertainty about the particulars, here, than many seem willing to accept.

It cannot deliver certainty about the particulars.

[Goofaholix]

Are you are claiming that these limitations have prevented effective practice over the past 2500 years? To me, that's the important issue.

If we understand the Buddha was mainly interested in people following in his footsteps and freeing themselves from greed, aversion and delusion then I'd say something has been limiting the effective practise of that over the past 2500 years.

If we understand the Buddha was mainly interested in people being reasonably moral, giving donations, building temples and pagodas, performing rites and rituals, all in order to secure a more fortunate rebirth then I'd agree there is no problem here.

I understand that the Buddha offered it as an alternative way of making progress, however can we say it's a good thing that in traditional cultures so few choose or are even aware they can choose the former?