Let's talk about common misconceptions of Buddhism

[PadmaVonSamba]

Under thorough investigation, one will find that any belief in a god depends totally on the belief in the existence of an ultimate self (which Buddhism rejects) just as the reflection of a face in a mirror depends on someone looking into the mirror.

[nightbloom]

We are in many respects much more closely aligned with these people than we are with "atheists."

You may be. I am not. Not into all that derivative Platonic and Neoplatonic bullshit. It’s actually the opposite of Buddhist teachings, which are nominalist, not realist,

It's really not that simple. If it were this simple, there would not be so many conceptual/theological tensions within Western religion, nor would there be such a long and often acrimonious history of debate about the nature of emptiness in the Buddhist world.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Another common misperception is that Buddhism is "nontheistic" as opposed to atheistic.

I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.

Thurman has also said tha Buddhism is just as polytheyas Hinduism.

[nightbloom]

Thurman has also said tha Buddhism is just as polytheyas Hinduism.

Typically making it not very polytheist at all.

[Sādhaka]

In contemporary common parlance, an atheist is an materialist who rejects out of hand any possible continuity of consciousness after physical death.

Well, I am a lifelong atheist who accepts rebirth and things that go bump in the night. YMMV.

You do realize the theists in India classified us as nastikas, along with carvakas, right?

Sure.

But it’s an straw-man.

That’s why I prefer non-theist over atheist.

That is, astika vs nastika is an false paradigm that falls within the extremes; kind of similar to the straw-man of rebloodlicans vs democrips within mainstream politics.

[Kim O'Hara]

I was listening to the Wisdom Podcast and Robert Thurman as the guest and there was a small segment where he came out and said the opposite. That Buddhism is nontheistic, not atheistic since it accepts the idea of many gods. I remember this comment from awhile ago and went back to see if you or anyone could clarify since it seems you and him are saying the opposite, but both are very well studied.

An atheist is someone who rejects a creator god. We may accept that there are many kinds of sentient beings.

: belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

In Buddhism, devas are just other sentient beings in samsara, no big deal.

We are atheists, as we reject utterly the idea outlined in red. To call ourselves non-theists is just a cute way to avoid plainly stating the fact that we reject the central tenet of all Abrahamic religions, and a number of Indian ones as well.

Isn’t that a very narrow definition of atheism? Most common definitions include not believing in any supernatural being. Not just a creator god.

The word arose in a Christian cultural context when there was only one God people could possibly choose not to believe in - the God of Abraham, who was conveniently the one and only God of all the religions that anyone was likely to want to talk about - Judaism, Islam or Christianity itself. So Atheism was choosing not to believe in one particular creator god as (e.g.) this dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist still implies.
If we wanted to use it more broadly, it might cover not believing in any Gods (Zeus, Thor, Kali - no, no, no) but it can't really cover disbelief in "any supernatural being" without getting ridiculous. Angels? Devas? Ghosts? Pixies? The Tooth Fairy?
I think "non-Theists" is an attempt to separate disbelief in the Abrahamic god from disbelief in other gods, but I don't think it succeeds very well.


Kim

[Malcolm]

And it's not a healthy one.

Nonsense. Why should I believe in anything? Beliefs are crutches. However, dependent origination is not a belief. It’s what you directly experience, whether you know it or not. And dependent origination is all you can experience. And nothing can be correctly explained in absence of dependent origination. This is atheism to the core.

[nightbloom]

And it's not a healthy one.

Nonsense. Why should I believe in anything? Beliefs are crutches. However, dependent origination is not a belief. It’s what you directly experience, whether you know it or not. And dependent origination is all you can experience. And nothing can be correctly explained in absence of dependent origination. This is atheism to the core.

You're missing the point I made in that post. Like I said, cosmology and metaphysics are one thing, and if you want to adhere to an extremely rigorous understanding of emptiness, that's fine (seriously). But "atheism" is not just about cosmology and metaphysics. It's also a social phenomenon, and it often comes along with a lot of other attitudes and cultural orientations today. In fact, I tend to think that these are really the salient features of "atheism," rather than simply lack of belief in an absolute "deity."

Edit: These features being, generally, hostility to "tradition," a strict and morbid vein of materialism (in which everything is "just material" in a way that reveals human experience as a "lie"), adherence to progressive/left politics, and so on. In pointing this out, I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else, here, by the way. Just pointing out that the viewpoint itself is part of a larger web of issues.

[Nicholas2727]

And it's not a healthy one.

Nonsense. Why should I believe in anything? Beliefs are crutches. However, dependent origination is not a belief. It’s what you directly experience, whether you know it or not. And dependent origination is all you can experience. And nothing can be correctly explained in absence of dependent origination. This is atheism to the core.

First, thank you for your earlier reply which explained more on the athiest view of Buddhism. But aren't there some beliefs we take in Buddhism? And especially in Mahayana/Vajrayana? The pure land was one that I struggled/struggle with for awhile due to my early days in Theravada. I don't see how this can be anything but a belief. As well as in Vajrayana the idea of Deities? I have heard them described by some as just states of mind and by others as real Deities and felt that this was something that had to be taken as faith. I agree with you that dependent origination is key and is what we directly experience, but with your background in Vajrayana for so long aren't there some beliefs you have to take that aren't crutches?

[Malcolm]

And it's not a healthy one.

Nonsense. Why should I believe in anything? Beliefs are crutches. However, dependent origination is not a belief. It’s what you directly experience, whether you know it or not. And dependent origination is all you can experience. And nothing can be correctly explained in absence of dependent origination. This is atheism to the core.

First, thank you for your earlier reply which explained more on the athiest view of Buddhism. But aren't there some beliefs we take in Buddhism? And especially in Mahayana/Vajrayana?

No. Vajrayana is an understanding of a kind of profound dependent origination which also requires no belief in anything. For that matter neither does rebirth, karma, etc. All of these are automatically validated when dependent origination is properly understood. So if you want to understand all these, understand dependent origination. It’s the Buddha’s most subtle teaching, and explicating it, with varying degrees of success is whole point of Abhidharma, Yogacara, Madhyamaka, and Vajrayana.

These four should be understood in ascending order.

[Nicholas2727]

Nonsense. Why should I believe in anything? Beliefs are crutches. However, dependent origination is not a belief. It’s what you directly experience, whether you know it or not. And dependent origination is all you can experience. And nothing can be correctly explained in absence of dependent origination. This is atheism to the core.

First, thank you for your earlier reply which explained more on the athiest view of Buddhism. But aren't there some beliefs we take in Buddhism? And especially in Mahayana/Vajrayana?

No. Vajrayana is an understanding of a kind of profound dependent origination which also requires no belief in anything. For that matter neither does rebirth, karma, etc. All of these are automatically validated when dependent origination is properly understood. So if you want to understand all these, understand dependent origination. It’s the Buddha’s most subtle teaching, and explicating it, with varying degrees of success is whole point of Abhidharma, Yogacara, Madhyamaka, and Vajrayana.

These four should be understood in ascending order.

Thank you for the clarification. Looks like more studying for me

[Malcolm]

adherence to progressive/left politics, and so on.

Unsurprisingly, I am a left-wing progressive. I feel much more at ease in the company of atheists than I do in the company of Christians. I least I know the former are pro-democratic. In this I stand in good company with men like Ethan Allen, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and other notable atheists of the American revolution.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc are anti-democratic by nature, whereas Buddhism is not. It probably has to do with the Platonic and Neo-platonic origins of their philosophy and theology. Qabala, for example, is just reheated neoplatonism.

It is also not surprising in the least that Buddhists, in ancient India were lumped together with the carvakas by other schools, since we reject śruti, varna, etc, basically everything in the "Laws of Manu." The only difference between us and materialists, even today, is that we accept rebirth and karma, they do not.

As I mentioned before, Buddhism in all it forms is a kind of nominalism; we reject that pādārthas aka universals are real. The acceptance of the real existence of universals is a characteristic of right wing philosophy everywhere.

[nightbloom]

adherence to progressive/left politics, and so on.

Unsurprisingly, I am a left-wing progressive. I feel much more at ease in the company of atheists than I do in the company of Christians. I least I know the former are pro-democratic. In this I stand in good company with men like Ethan Allen, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and other notable atheists of the American revolution.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc are anti-democratic by nature, whereas Buddhism is not. It probably has to do with the Platonic and Neo-platonic origins of their philosophy and theology. Qabala, for example, is just reheated neoplatonism.

It is also not surprising in the least that Buddhists, in ancient India were lumped together with the carvakas by other schools, since we reject śruti, varna, etc, basically everything in the "Laws of Manu." The only difference between us and materialists, even today, is that we accept rebirth and karma, they do not.

As I mentioned before, Buddhism in all it forms is a kind of nominalism; we reject that pādārthas aka universals are real. The acceptance of the real existence of universals is a characteristic of right wing philosophy everywhere.

Funny how it just so happens to work out that the Dharma is compatible, in every way, shape and form, with progressivism as it exists in 2021.

This is a naked attempt to bring the Dharma in under the umbrella of the current political and social zeitgeist, and nothing more. Totally transparent.

[Malcolm]

Funny how it just so happens to work out that the Dharma is compatible, in every way, shape and form, with progressivism as it exists in 2021.

You should read the Ratnavali. Nāgārjuna had very progressive views about health care, social safety nets, prison reform, elimination of capital punishment and so on. Buddha himself was anti-caste, anti-militarism, etc.

This is a naked attempt to bring the Dharma in under the umbrella of the current political and social zeitgeist, and nothing more. Totally transparent.

It is not an attempt. Western Buddhists tend to be left-wing progressives, except in Eastern Europe, where they are tend to lean right, because of their experience with Stalinism. The first time I met a Republican Buddhist I was honestly very shocked. I personally do not see how you can square right wing politics with bodhicitta. Why do you think we were so hard on you about vaccinations? You are going to be very unhappy in the Dharma in America if you can't deal with progressives.

Tibetans themselves tend to be a bit reactionary, because most of them are monarchists.

Noted that you did not deal with the actual content of the post.


Mod note: Between this post and the next post by DGA, a whole bunch of off topic or ad hominem posts have been removed.

[DGA]

Reframing part of the conversation:

if you can't respect that people you disagree with on some issues are people you can learn from, then you're really going to struggle with Buddha Dharma. And nearly everything else.

[nightbloom]

Reframing part of the conversation:

if you can't respect that people you disagree with on some issues are people you can learn from, then you're really going to struggle with Buddha Dharma. And nearly everything else.

I agree entirely. I think few of the things that are really important in life are cut and dry, obvious, accessible to "common sense." I'm completely happy to practice the dharma and work with people with different politics, so long as this is reciprocated and we try to avoid treating one another as bad faith actors.

I regret accusing Malcolm of cynicism, and retract it.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The Buddhist center I affiliate with is largely filled with people who are liberal/progressive, but many people are not, and we are all good friends who respect each other and care about each other.

This is because what we share in common outshines any “worldly” differences we might have. This includes not only the dharma teachings, but the compassion of our late rinpoche. He certainly didn’t care about anybody’s political views. He only saw beings trapped In samsara, and Buddhas in those same beings.

I have always leaned left-progressive. My spouse, by contrast, is a big fan of Trump. That’s given me my share of stress, but there are more important things in life. We didn’t get married to form a political alliance. People shouldn’t approach Dharma as a political decision.

[Malcolm]

Reframing part of the conversation:

if you can't respect that people you disagree with on some issues are people you can learn from, then you're really going to struggle with Buddha Dharma. And nearly everything else.

I agree entirely. I think few of the things that are really important in life are cut and dry, obvious, accessible to "common sense." I'm completely happy to practice the dharma and work with people with different politics, so long as this is reciprocated and we try to avoid treating one another as bad faith actors.

I regret accusing Malcolm of cynicism, and retract it.

One thing that is cut and dry is that Buddhism has far more in common with atheism than theism. So much so, it is basically a form of atheism. But many Buddhist are attached to Ideas of spirituality, and so atheism makes them uncomfortable..

[PadmaVonSamba]

One thing that is cut and dry is that Buddhism has far more in common with atheism than theism. So much so, it is basically a form of atheism. But many Buddhist are attached to Ideas of spirituality, and so atheism makes them uncomfortable..

Someone I know once jokingly referred to Buddhism as “Atheistic Hinduism”

[Malcolm]

One thing that is cut and dry is that Buddhism has far more in common with atheism than theism. So much so, it is basically a form of atheism. But many Buddhist are attached to Ideas of spirituality, and so atheism makes them uncomfortable..

Someone I know once jokingly referred to Buddhism as “Atheistic Hinduism”

That might be true, but only if Buddhism’s theory of karma and rebirth even remotely resembled the Hindu concepts of the same, but it doesn’t.