Is Buddhism Atheistic?

[Charlemagne_II]

In a recent discussion at another thread the question came up: is Buddhism atheistic? I was told by an avowed Buddhist that it is not. But I’ve heard all my life that it is. William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said over a hundred years ago that Buddhism is atheistic.

In the *Encyclopedia of Philosophy *it is reported:

“Briefly, then, the Buddha’s teaching amounts to a recasting of the atheistic tradition in early Indian thought, as exemplified contemporaneously in Jainism and later in classical Samkhya, an Indian philosophical system.” Ninian Smart

Can anyone add to this or correct it? Thank you.

 

[the_phoenix]

Funny thing, just came across this quote:

“Buddhism is not a creed, it is a doubt.”
– Gilbert K. Chesterton

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It would depend on ones definition of atheist. In our secular society atheism seems to include a denial of the existence of God. From discussions with Buddhists at various times they seem to leave the existence of God as undetermined. Maybe this would be closer to agnostic. The existence or non-existence of God seems irrelevant to their belief.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I’m no expert just an amateur. But a good starting point to me in narrowing it down would be to differentiate Religions which believe in a personal God: Christianity, Judaism, Islam vs. Religions which believe in an impersonal God, gods, life force meaning Hinduism and probably Buddhism.

Huston Smith stated that:

“One meaning of God is that of a personal being who created the universe by deliberate design. Defined in this sense, nirvana (Buddhism’s goal for the soul in which private desire has been completely consumed into extinction of finite self which is itself Bliss) is not God. The Buddha did not consider it personal because personality requires definition, which nirvana excludes. And while he did not expressly deny creation, he clearly exempted nirvana from responsibility for it. If absence of a personal Creator-God is atheism, Buddhism is atheistic”.

Like Hinduism, Buddhism posits the belief in the transmigration of souls but, unlike Hinduism, Buddhism denied spiritual substance to the soul (which in my mind is confusing enough).

And just to complicate matters further one must not forget that Buddhism also has two main sub-branches: Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Interestingly enough Mahayana believes that human aspirations are supported by divine powers and it includes petitionary prayer. The most interesting figure in Mahayana Buddhism is the ideal of the boddhisattva, a being, who having reached the brink of nirvana, voluntarily renounces the prize and returns to the world to make nirvana available to others. (rings a bit of a bell, I guess).

This is the limit of my cursory understanding. I knew a bit more years ago when I read up on it, but perhaps someone can correct any mistakes on my part, or define the concepts better. God Bless.

 

[punkforchrist]

Some strands of Buddhism (just as in Hinduism) are atheistic, and others are theistic. The prevailing view in a Buddhist text like The Holy Teaching of Vamalakirti is that the only ultimate is the Void. This shouldn’t be confused with nothingness; rather, it is an expression of the constant change throughout one’s experience. In fact, there is no personal identity, since all of one’s mental states are in constant flux.

So it is the Void, and not God, according to Vamalakirti, that is the only ultimate. You could say this is atheistic, but it’s much different than the atheism of the West, e.g. Naturalism. Of course, classical theists observe the change in the universe and attribute it to God, the Prime Mover.

 

[saieditor]

There are a lot of Buddhists in this world who treat Buddhism as a philosophy, and as such, they say, “If the Buddha could be proved to be a fake, or not to have existed, then Buddhism would continue” … as a philosophy, as a way of life.

However, the Buddha did exist. There are relics.

As other posters have said, there is theistic Buddhism and non-theistic Buddhism. That does not make it a-theistic, nor antagonistic to divine incarnations.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kyiv

If absence of a personal Creator-God is atheism, Buddhism is atheistic.

Not sure about that. Deism is the belief in a God who is not personal, but I don’t think deists qualify as atheists. Is Buddhism then more like deism?

What gets me is that at least one brand of Buddhists have monks and nuns and elaborate rituals … incense, bells, etc. I saw such a group near Hong Kong. Not speaking Chinese, I was unable to ask them who they pray to … if that was a prayer service.

If there is a pantheon of Buddhists gods, I’ve never seen them named.

 

[larsenl1]

In a recent discussion at another thread the question came up: is Buddhism atheistic? I was told by an avowed Buddhist that it is not. But I’ve heard all my life that it is. William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said over a hundred years ago that Buddhism is atheistic.

In the *Encyclopedia of Philosophy *it is reported:

“Briefly, then, the Buddha’s teaching amounts to a recasting of the atheistic tradition in early Indian thought, as exemplified contemporaneously in Jainism and later in classical Samkhya, an Indian philosophical system.” Ninian Smart

Can anyone add to this or correct it? Thank you.

Buddist monks strive for enlightenment. They do not serve God. Buddhism is a path to perfection that you bring about by your own meditation. There is no Christ or sacrificial lamb to bring you salvation. Salvation is reaching perfection-altruistic love of all humanity, an understanding of the greatness of the universe. Christians believe that we come to this understanding by the grace of God.

An atheist adknowledges the existence of God by the denial that God exists. The statement “I do not believe in God” uses the name of God to make the denial.

An agnostic has nothing to believe in. We are cells, there is nothing after the death of the body.

These are purist definitions.

I don’t know that Buddhists fall into either category. I would think that they are closer to pagan religion than atheism. But that is just my opinion

 

[rossum]

In a recent discussion at another thread the question came up: is Buddhism atheistic?

As has been said, that very much depends on how you define “atheistic”. Buddhism covers a very wide range of beliefs and people so it is difficult to include all in a simple description.

I was told by an avowed Buddhist that it is not. But I’ve heard all my life that it is. William James, the American philosopher and psychologist, said over a hundred years ago that Buddhism is atheistic.

Puts hand in air, “That was me”. I usually describe Buddhism as indifferent to gods. Their existence or not is not seen as particularly important. They are merely living beings who are working on their own path to nirvana. They may be a help to us on our path, or they may be a hindrance just as most other living beings can be a help or a hindrance. Bodhisattvas are of course only a help, never a hindrance.

Buddhism does reject the notion of a single creator god in the Abrahamic mode. To quote from the Brahmajala sutta:[The Buddha said:]
40. There, indeed, is such a time, bhikkhus, as when this world system rises again, as it does at times, after a lapse of many aeons. When the world system thus rises again, there appears a palatial Brahma-abode, void of all life. At that time, a certain being from the Abhassara plane of existence dies, either at the end of his span of life, or on the exhaustion of the stock of his meritorious deeds, and is reborn in that empty palatial Brahma realm. When he is born there because of jhana mind (meditation mind), he is nurtured by rapture, resplendent with light from his own body, sojourning in the heavens and living in splendour. Thus he remains there for aeons.

  41. Living there alone for aeons, there arises in him mental weariness and a longing for company thus: "Would that some other beings come to this place!" And then other beings from the Abhassara plane of existence die either at the end of their span of life, or on the exhaustion of the stock of their meritorious deeds, and are reborn in that palatial Brahma realm. When they are born there because of jhana mind, they are nurtured by rapture, resplendent with light from their own bodies, sojourning in the heavens and living in splendour. Thus they remain there for aeons.

  42. Then, bhikkhus, the being who was the first to be reborn there thinks to himself thus:

  "I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana (meditation), and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings. Why can I say so? I can say so because a while ago I thought to myself: 'Would that some other beings come to this place!' As I wished so, other beings have appeared in this place."

  And then other beings who appeared later think to themselves:

  "This honourable personage is the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. This honourable Brahma has created us. Why can we say so? We can say so because, as we see, he appeared in this place first, whereas we appeared only after him."

  43. Among them, bhikkhus, the one who appeared first lives longer, and is more beautiful and more powerful (than the others). Those beings who appeared later have a shorter life, and are less beautiful and less powerful (than the one who first appeared).

  44. Then, bhikkhus, there arises this possibility. A being dies in the Brahma plane of existence and is reborn in this human world; and there he renounces the worldly life for the homeless life of a recluse. And having thus renounced the worldly life and become a homeless recluse, he achieves utmost mental concentration by dint of ardent, steadfast, persevering exertion, mindfulness and right attentiveness. Having established his mind in highest concentration, he can recollect that former existence (of a Brahma); but he cannot recollect beyond that.

  He says thus:

  "That honourable personage is the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. That honourable Brahma has created us. He is permanent, stable, eternal, immutable and as everlasting as all things eternal. We, who were created by the honourable Brahma, are impermanent, changeable, short-lived and mortal. Thus have we come into this human world."

Source: Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1.1 40 - 44
The being who thinks that He is the creator of the universe is seen as mistaken, He is merely the first to be reborn in the material realm following a cycle of destruction and re-emergence of the material universe. The Abhassara plane is a non-material plane of existence, the Brahma realm is the highest of the material planes of existence. Bhikkus are Buddhist monks who formed the Buddha’s audience when he delivered this sutta.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“The rough, shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian feels sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G. K. Chesterton

For me this is post number 747. Boeing!!!

 

[KyivAndrew]

“The rough, shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them because they are living. The Christian feels sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him because he is alive.” G. K. Chesterton

For me this is post number 747. Boeing!!!

Hey, high-flying 747, you may also want to check out this thread which took off around the same time your flight did.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336250:thumbsup:

 

[Leela]

As has been said, that very much depends on how you define “atheistic”. Buddhism covers a very wide range of beliefs and people so it is difficult to include all in a simple description.

I agree, the atheism/theism is not such a useful dichotomy here. It’s a shame we even need the word “atheism.” I wish it were as unneeded and as a term for people who aren’t into astrology. As it stands now, it is about as descriptive as such a term since it just points to a specific belief that is not held instead of what beliefs are held.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*As it stands now, it is about as descriptive as such a term since it just points to a specific belief that is not held instead of what beliefs are held. *

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the mere absence of belief in God, but the denial of God, which is at the same time both a negation of God and an affirmation of Nogod.

Along with that affirmation of Nogod come all kinds of implications: the denial of the soul, the denial of immortality, the denial of absolute moral principles, etc.

 

[Xuan]

This reminds me of the Baptist who insists that Catholics believe in worshipping Mary. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Incidentally, if not “atheist,” what do you call someone who simply doesn’t believe in a God or gods?

 

[Leela]

*As it stands now, it is about as descriptive as such a term since it just points to a specific belief that is not held instead of what beliefs are held. *

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the mere absence of belief in God, but the denial of God, which is at the same time both a negation of God and an affirmation of Nogod.

Along with that affirmation of Nogod come all kinds of implications: the denial of the soul, the denial of immortality, the denial of absolute moral principles, etc.

I think the above descriptions pretty much amount to the same thing. We could quibble, about whether believing that gods do not exist implies certainty on the matter or not, but there isn’t much point. Atheism is such an empty term as to be pretty much useless in describing people.

The fact that Buddhists may be considered atheists yet believe in immortality, souls, and absolute morality should show you that there is a wide range of beliefs that atheists hold. Personally, I don’t think anything cool happens when we die, but I think no one living is in a position to say for sure and they certainly couldn’t say what it is that is supposed to happen. I think of the soul as a synonym for the self. I think that “absolute moral principles” are an attempt to give the past the prestige of the eternal. Instead I would substitute the hope that we can create a future that is unimaginably better than the present. I think that the idea of “absolute moral principles” and the idea that our beliefs need a grounding in some metaphysical sense are undue constraints on our imaginations for what could be. That’s my brand of atheism, but it is not the only one.

 

[larsenl1]

Incidentally, if not “atheist,” what do you call someone who simply doesn’t believe in a God or gods?

Someone who simply does not believe in god(s) is AGNOSTIC and someone who denies the existence of God is ATHEISTIC it is not merely semantics it is a philosophical difference.

One is seeking to classify a non-christian as either Agnostic or Atheist and this is not a plausible choice. I think that generally speaking those who believe in something other than the monotheistic God are Pagan. The greek/roman belief in Venus, Mars, etc was pagan. The jews in exodus from the pharoah who made a golden calf were practising pagans (many of the jews in slavery did not practice the religion of Abraham–they were ethnic jews). Hindus are pagans and I do not mean that in a hate crime way but as a way to differentiate them from christians. Wiccan is a pagan religion. I am christian and I have a friend who is wiccan. She is a person with a strict moral code, ethics, whathaveyou. However, she is very vocal about the fact that she does not believe in God the Father, Jesus, His only son, and the Holy Spirit.

I truly believe that to be an evangelist we have to be able to discuss these things without using words that convey hate or disgust. I am able to say that as a christian a worry for my friend’s soul, but I do not shun her or mock her beliefs. That will not ever cause her to look at my beliefs with an open mind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Atheism is such an empty term as to be pretty much useless in describing people. *

Well, that won’t stop atheists from calling themselves atheists and attacking religion with the greatest gusto.

The fact that Buddhists may be considered atheists yet believe in immortality, souls, and absolute morality should show you that there is a wide range of beliefs that atheists hold.

I rather think it tends to show that Buddhism is incoherent. Why bother to have a religion if you are not going to have a God?

 

[Leela]

Someone who simply does not believe in god(s) is AGNOSTIC and someone who denies the existence of God is ATHEISTIC it is not merely semantics it is a philosophical difference.

Agnosticism was coined to be the position that one cannot know whether or not gods or God exist. It is an epistemological question. Regardless of where you stand on that knowledge question, it seems to me that you still have to answer the question “do you believe in God.” If you don’t, you’re an atheist. If you don’t believe that certainty on the question of God’s existence is possible, then you are an agnostic, too. So you can be both agnostic and an atheist and you can also be agnostic and a theist at the same time. I guess if you can’t make up your mind as to whether you think gods probably do or don’t exist, you are an agnostic and neither an atheist nor a theist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*I guess if you can’t make up your mind as to whether you think gods probably do or don’t exist, you are an agnostic and neither an atheist nor a theist. *

I suppose theoretically this is true, but I’ll put money on the agnostic being a whole lot closer to the atheist than the theist, since in **all probability **he does not worship.

 

[Leela]

Leela

*I guess if you can’t make up your mind as to whether you think gods probably do or don’t exist, you are an agnostic and neither an atheist nor a theist. *

I suppose theoretically this is true, but I’ll put money on the agnostic being a whole lot closer to the atheist than the theist, since in **all probability **he does not worship.

True enough. The answer to the question of whether there exists a supernatural being who will judge us after death based on our adherence to a certain religions precepts is one that each of us are living out in our daily lives.