Buddhism and Atheism.

[More Than A Feeling]

What is interesting to me is that Buddhists do not get nearly as much flack as atheists do, even though, archetypically, neither will believe in a god (I realize that some Buddhists have local gods and spirits and bodisattvas and what-not, but Buddhism in general does not rely on believing in a god.) That can partly be attributed to Buddhism's exotic origins, but is it possible that because Buddhism has an original teacher that everyone can look to, and a known system of values, it is elevated in the minds of people who would scorn atheism by itself? Or is it simpler than that? Perhaps because Buddhism gets labeled a religion, people just lump Buddhists in with every other religious person, regardless of the vast differences between Buddhism and the "Big Three" for example.

Do you think that if the Humanist Manifestos, or the Secular Humanist declaration, were more widely known, people would feel more comfortable with atheism? Here is the Humanist Manifesto III:

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS

Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

* Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association

[htuttle]

1. What separates a 'religion' from a 'philosophy'?

Buddhism brings that question right to the top.

[Warpy]

2. Buddhism requires individual practice

but fellowship is completely optional. The real practice is quite solitary whether or not there is anyone else around. Some sects are mostly contemplative, like the Zen sects; others are incredibly intricate with centuries of scriptures and elaborate ways to describe the universe, the Tibetans come to mind, and who are much closer to what we think of as a religion.

Basically, what divides Buddhism from religion is the concept of worship. Even those sects like the Tibetan that recognize earthly gods don't consider them particularly worthy of worship; other sects deny the existence of gods outside human consciousness, itself. Buddha was an ordinary man who devised a set of concepts for reducing attachment and for getting through life without making the world a worse place than it already is, not a heavenly being who demands worship.

Alan Watts did a good job of beginning to explain Buddhism to the west. Enough westerners have now gone into monasteries and done enough practice to rise to the level of teacher that there are now a lot of equally accessible books out there for people who want to learn.

This barely scratches the surface. There are plenty of books and online sites run by the various flavors of Buddhism that can explain it much better than I can.

[crispini]

10. hm. but then, what is worship?

One synonym for "worship" is "reverence" and there is certainly a lot of "reverence" that goes on in various Buddhist practices. I think the difference is that with God, "worship" is all tied up with the almost hierarchical nature of God, "worshiping" that which is on high. I have found that over the years, my sense of "worship" has not changed, rather the object has. From "Ah! How great God is!" to "Ah, how great the universe is! How great life is!" Which is much more satisfying, and in some understandings of God, of course, might be considered to be the same thing. ;)

[Warpy]

11. I am too deeply skeptical

to worship. That's really the bottom line with me. I lack belief in any of the supernatural because I have never seen evidence for any of it.

I do see evidence of what the practice of jhana meditation does. The only way to see such evidence is to do it.

Buddha himself cautioned his pupils to be skeptical of what he said about practice and to explore it for themselves.

Buddhism forces you to keep the focus on yourself and your progress in following the eightfold path, on achieving deeper levels of meditation, on detaching from all those things we tend to cling to, from ordinary grudges to fear to fleeting pleasures, all of it.

Worship focuses on keeping the focus off yourself and on an "other," whether it's a god or a whole panoply of gods and goddesses or the universe itself.

The difference may be too subtle for many people to grasp, but that's where it is.

[crispini]

17. Yeah, but you know, Tat tvam asi, and all that.

although I suppose I should not mix in the Vedanta, but I think that Buddhism would probably agree with that principle. In cultivating a reverence for all life, I reverence myself. :)

[Warpy]

19. More like I reverence myself

so I reverence all life.

[Evoman]

3. Hmmmmm

Buddhism may not have a god
Which indeed is something to applaud
But between reincarnation and nirvana
And ol' Siddhartha Gautama
It gives the supernatural a nod.

[Ikari Gendo]

4. I'm a student of Zen myself

Buddhism is a philosophy that can be overlaid onto any religion including atheism.

Zen is a philosophy of personal responsibility and self-improvement, especially concentrated on learning how to think in new ways. Humanism is a philosophy of personal responsibility and cultural improvement, and therefore they work well together.

People are naturally inclined to believe in the divine. This is a natural phenomenon, and a survival trait based on the tendency to see patterns. This can cause people to interpret events as showing divine intervention where there is merely random chance. It is natural and unavoidable.

Humanism does not require that man not believe in God, merely that he rely on his own efforts rather than his prayers to change the world.

[Hand]

5. Buddhism is non-theistic rather than atheistic.

There is a difference. Nontheism essentially doesn't worry much about the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being; it's sort of irrelevant with respect to the individual and communal path. Theism is belief in the existence of a supreme being; atheism (IMHO) is belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being. From the nontheistic point of view, theism and nontheism are two sides of the same coin. :hi:

[crispini]

9. Hm, I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with you there.

Admittedly, I've mostly studied one very specific type of Buddhism, but in a very real sense, it would not be wrong to say that the Universe is Divine, i.e. we are all Buddhas (albeit unrealized ones) and all things are part of that which is. It would be incorrect to consider the ultimate principle as any sort of being. Now that I come to think of it, though, I'll be happy to grant you the (possible) existence of any lesser deities, you're right about that, but the One ultimate principle is, in some sense, all of us. I don't think it would be incorrect to say that you and I and everyone are God (sort of).

Back to the OP's point, I think the trappings and outward show of a "religion" are what cause others to give us a pass. Temples, organizations, statues, etc. I'm not sure the average American gets far into it enough to realize the subtleties of the philosophy. People tend to ask if one worships Buddha, for example. Which suggests that perhaps if atheists want to get accepted in society as atheists, just start a few centers and focus on a blank spot on the wall or something. :) I do consider myself an atheist, and I sometimes tell people that, just for funzies. ;)

[Warpy]

12. Buddhists have a better one.

When someone demands to know if I'm SAVED, I just say, "No, I'm recycled."

The reaction allows me enough time to make a clean getaway.

[crispini]

15. LOL, I love that one. :)

Very good.

[madeline_con]

6. RE: "differences between Buddhism and the "Big Three"...

Have you looked at the astonishing similarities between the Buddha and the Christ? What a coinky dink.... :shrug:

[struggle4progress]

7. There are significant differences between the teachings of Buddha and Christ, notably

with respect to the problem of human suffering.

Once there was a woman named Kisagotami, whose first-born son died. She was so stricken with grief that she roamed the streets carrying the dead body and asking for help to bring her son back to life. A kind and wise man took her to the Buddha.

The Buddha told her, "Fetch me a handful of mustard seeds and I will bring your child back to life." Joyfully Kisagotami started off to get them. Then the Buddha added, "But the seeds must come from a family that has not known death."

Kisagotami went from door to door in the whole village asking for the mustard seeds, but everyone said, "Oh, there have been many deaths here", "I lost my father", I lost my sister". She could not find a single household that had not been visited by death. Finally Kisagotami returned to the Buddha and said, "There is death in every family. Everyone dies. Now I understand your teaching."

http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

Ja'irus, a synagogue ruler, came ... His only daughter, about twelve, was dying ... While he poke, a man .. said, "Your daughter died; do not trouble the Rabbi more." But Jesus .. answered, "Do not fear .. and she will be well." And at the house ... everyone mourned her; but he said, "Do not cry: she is not dead but asleep." And they laughed .. because she was dead. But he called .. "Child, arise." And .. she got up at once; and he told them to give her food.

Luke 8:40ff

Setting aside the perhaps entirely reasonable question of whether the gospel here relays an actual event, the second story suggests an entirely different attitude than the first. The Buddha's teaching suggests we learn our own suffering is non-exceptional and that our neighbors suffer the same inescapable woes that we do. The Christ's practice suggests there is only one proper response to the neighbor's suffering, which is to restore the one whose loss produced the grief.

The Buddha, of course, preaches that suffering will end when there is no attachment causing reincarnation according to karmic law, whereas the Christ preaches Resurrection. Both teachings admit purely metaphorical interpretations, if one is inclined to seek metaphors. But whether one seeks metaphors, or regards one or the other story as true, or regards both merely an ancient fables, the stories clearly represent different attitudes towards the problem of death.

[madeline_con]

8. There is also speculation that raising people from the dead is

forbidden, even for those with Kundalini (sp) wisdom on high planes. The Christ was punished for it, and returned to stone consciousness, as we read about the Devil in the widerness and the encouragement to turn stones to bread. It may have been more a teaching tool for the Christ than an attitude toward death.

BTW, resurrection and reincarnation both support the idea of an immortal soul. It's just what the One decides to do with them that differs. ;)

My point is, there are so many similarities between mosat religions, they all seem to have come from a single source.

[struggle4progress]

13. I've never seen this particular criticism of Christianity and would certainly

appreciate any reference you can provide. I've probably only ever seen one Buddhist critique of other religions, comprising perhaps one sentence, which in various forms I've encountered in four or five different places. Your use of kundalini suggests you have in mind some yogic criticism, though I'm inclined to suspect it is New Age in origin rather than traditional.

[Egalitarian]

14. Buddha within, Christ within, what difference?

[crispini]

18. Christians would not usually agree with the statement "I am Christ."

"I am Buddha" would work for some Buddhists, though.

[Egalitarian]

21. I was referring to the tradition of potential

That does not involve saying "I AM Christ" or "I AM Buddha". Significant difference IMO. Rather, my understanding is that there exists a tradition within both that the path to salvation or nirvana, etc. involves discovering the Christ or Buddha nature within oneself, as opposed to worshipping that outside oneself. "Living Buddha, Living Christ", by Thich Nhat Hanh is one introduction to the concept if anyone is interested.

But, agree with your point in general. This is not usual for modern followers of Christ especially. This is unfortunate IMO.

I wonder, does this way of thinking label me an atheistic theist?

[NMMNG]

16. Not all atheists are humanists, however

And some theists (fundamentalists in particular) consider Humanists as "evil" as atheists because they believe they substitute worship of humans for worship of God. Therefore I don't know if hyping the Humanist Manifesto would do any good for the images of atheists. :shrug:

[saltpoint]

20. Cat Stevens passed up Jesus and Buddha for Mohammed.

I'm not sure where that leaves the issue, but it sure took me by surprise.

Those early albums were terrific.