Even though it rarely works out that way, there are sometimes very simple answers. A recent American Buddhist Perspective blog post recently asked a fairly routine question: "Buddhism: religion or philosophy?" It's a religion. Buddhism by its basic principles is a supernatural based belief system, which therefore makes it a religion. It may be true that it is one of the more philosophical religions but that does not make it any less of an organized religion.
Mr. Whitaker throughout his piece seems to make comments to the effect that he knows this already. Throughout he seems to be trying to reconcile himself to the possibility that it could be equally both. I disagree mainly because it ignores a number of common critiques of common theistic assumptions. It doesn't matter if religions are capable of being a specific way if it is possible to be that way without any religious elements. He talks about reducing Buddhism to "techniques" which is the same half-assed argument used in promoting Yoga in public schools. "Yoga" the way many people "practice" it is a matter of technique/method devoid of its original religious overtones. That isn't really Yoga. Essentially you are mixing calisthenics with meditation. It does not require any supernatural beliefs let alone a belief system. Adapting meditative and relaxation techniques from Buddhism does not make you a Buddhist.
If individuals adopted some but not all the various religious based principles along with the methods then you might have more of a debate/question. That does not seem to be what Whitaker is talking about. Buddhism is by its nature a religion. It is just as attached to supernatural thinking and concepts as any other faith.*
I have previously written about Buddhisms supernatural underpinning;
How Atheistic is Buddhism? (12/31/11)
Buddhism and the God Concept (2/24/13)
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddhism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Not so Pacifist
It may at times seem like I go out of the way to criticize Christianity, especially Catholicism, but that is not the case. I tend to write more about them for the simple reasons that it is the dominant religion of the culture I live in and it gets the most attention. Most religious "news" that gets reported tends to be focused on Christianity. However, recently Buddhism has been featured. I have previously pointed out that if you actually look into Buddhism it becomes clear that that religion is not nearly as "atheistic" as people assume. Recent reporting also points out that it is not quite the pacifist faith that many also assume it to be.
"In Myanmar, living in fear amid religious violence" AP (resposted by NPR)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=180495074
"Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?" BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
This is by no means the first time Buddhism has been used to condone and/or encourage violence.
"In Myanmar, living in fear amid religious violence" AP (resposted by NPR)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=180495074
"Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?" BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
This is by no means the first time Buddhism has been used to condone and/or encourage violence.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Buddhism and the God Concept
Even though Justin Whitaker seems to have reached some similar conclusions about Buddhism he also seems to have fallen prey to a number of misconceptions and stereotypes. The very title of his post poses the question "Would a Buddhist Affirm that belief in God is a Delusion?", apparently as a rhetorical device. Part of his conclusion and the reason a number of other American Buddhists agree that God is a delusion is premised on a variety of logical errors and misattributions.
He starts by pointing out that, "I have come across several reasons to think of God as a delusion. The first is the fact that believers in God seem very confused about God, or, at least, consistently unable to agree about what He (or, for fun, she) is like or wants humanity to do." So what? If this is one of the standards to judge something delusional then we are all delusion about a vast number of things. We all lack understanding and consensus on numerous topics.
Whitaker is both a Buddhist and an atheist. He sees no contradiction and since there is nothing indicating his views on such metaphysical Buddhist concepts as dharma and nirvana I see not direct contradictions, either. That said, he does not seem to grasp that there is more than one version of the God concept. He goes on to mention, "Buddhism might best be described as non-theistic in the Western sense, as it has no creator God. The Gods (devas) of Brahmanism (proto-Hinduism) do find their way into early Buddhism and have remained there ever since." While it is true that Buddhism does not officially recognize a personal God many of its beliefs are dependent on various supernatural elements that fit easily into more abstract ways of viexing God. If you didn't pick up on those few sentences do contain a contradiction. Traditional Buddhism does have a creator God, albeit in a round about way, in Brahma. Hinduism is not as polytheistic as many assume. All the Hindu gods are believed to be incarnation. They trace back to three gods and then those three are in turn seen as incarnations of Brahma.
Basically, Buddhism can be perceived as "non-theistic" or even "atheistic" from only the most narrow interpretation possible. As I have previously noted ("How Atheistic is Buddhism?" December 31, 2011), Buddhism is just as prone to supernatural/metaphysical nonsense as any other faith. That Whitaker and a decent portion of American Buddhists are themselves non-theists or atheists does not necessarily mean that the religion is itself amenable to disbelief in the God concept. I would have no problem with that being the case but it is not an accurate evaluation.
He starts by pointing out that, "I have come across several reasons to think of God as a delusion. The first is the fact that believers in God seem very confused about God, or, at least, consistently unable to agree about what He (or, for fun, she) is like or wants humanity to do." So what? If this is one of the standards to judge something delusional then we are all delusion about a vast number of things. We all lack understanding and consensus on numerous topics.
Whitaker is both a Buddhist and an atheist. He sees no contradiction and since there is nothing indicating his views on such metaphysical Buddhist concepts as dharma and nirvana I see not direct contradictions, either. That said, he does not seem to grasp that there is more than one version of the God concept. He goes on to mention, "Buddhism might best be described as non-theistic in the Western sense, as it has no creator God. The Gods (devas) of Brahmanism (proto-Hinduism) do find their way into early Buddhism and have remained there ever since." While it is true that Buddhism does not officially recognize a personal God many of its beliefs are dependent on various supernatural elements that fit easily into more abstract ways of viexing God. If you didn't pick up on those few sentences do contain a contradiction. Traditional Buddhism does have a creator God, albeit in a round about way, in Brahma. Hinduism is not as polytheistic as many assume. All the Hindu gods are believed to be incarnation. They trace back to three gods and then those three are in turn seen as incarnations of Brahma.
Basically, Buddhism can be perceived as "non-theistic" or even "atheistic" from only the most narrow interpretation possible. As I have previously noted ("How Atheistic is Buddhism?" December 31, 2011), Buddhism is just as prone to supernatural/metaphysical nonsense as any other faith. That Whitaker and a decent portion of American Buddhists are themselves non-theists or atheists does not necessarily mean that the religion is itself amenable to disbelief in the God concept. I would have no problem with that being the case but it is not an accurate evaluation.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
How Atheistic is Buddhism?
Buddhism has often been characterized as being atheistic. This is due to its lack of a personal god. Does that really make it atheistic? As I have noted on numerous other occasions there is more than one version of the God concept. Lack of belief in one version does not exclude the other. I find it difficult to accept this characterization since I see a number of instances that imply that Buddhism does accept the abstract version of the God concept.
The concept of Nirvana can be rather complicated and nuanced. There are debates about the true nature of Nirvana. One aspect that is not agreed on is whether the personality of an individual is annihilated or somehow subsumed by the state of Nirvana. Most descriptions of Nirvana, however, include references to consciousness. To me, by definition, this would indicate some type of personality/persona. Nirvana is frequently describe as the ultimate/cosmic consciousness. Many modern Christian theologians describe God in very similar terms. I do not find it a stretch to see Nirvana as a slight variation of the abstract version of God. If the primary goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana how is it not theistic? If you wish to become one with the consciousness of the cosmos is that not essentially the same goal of Christians becoming one with God?
Reincarnation also seems to defy the characterization of Buddhism as an atheistic faith. It is true that some sects claim not to believe in souls (the mechanism by which you are reincarnated) but still cling to the concept of Karma. They do believe that you can not escape the earthly bounds of physical being until you achieve Nirvana. They do accept that you keep coming back in physical form and that each form is bound by Karma. Each form somehow records the individuals progress towards Nirvana. Even though some Buddhist groups deny having a soul I fail to see how they can honestly do so since there has to be a mechanism (fantasy or not) to transfer Karma from one form to another. Sounds like a soul to me. The notion of some type of eternal metaphysical entity, whether labeled soul or not, smacks of the God concept.
There are other aspects of Buddhism that indirectly seem to hark back to the God concept. The very structure of religion seems to do so at least to some degree. The doctrines and rites/rituals are usually described in divine terms and are frequently ascribed to a divine source. This is as true of Buddhism as it is of any other religion I've ever read up on. Examine the myths and legends around Siddartha Guatama and you will see many of the same elements of any founding figure of the various world religions.
Buddhism may be somewhat atheistic in comparison to specific world religions but when viewed in light of all belief systems it really isn't atheistic at all.
The concept of Nirvana can be rather complicated and nuanced. There are debates about the true nature of Nirvana. One aspect that is not agreed on is whether the personality of an individual is annihilated or somehow subsumed by the state of Nirvana. Most descriptions of Nirvana, however, include references to consciousness. To me, by definition, this would indicate some type of personality/persona. Nirvana is frequently describe as the ultimate/cosmic consciousness. Many modern Christian theologians describe God in very similar terms. I do not find it a stretch to see Nirvana as a slight variation of the abstract version of God. If the primary goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana how is it not theistic? If you wish to become one with the consciousness of the cosmos is that not essentially the same goal of Christians becoming one with God?
Reincarnation also seems to defy the characterization of Buddhism as an atheistic faith. It is true that some sects claim not to believe in souls (the mechanism by which you are reincarnated) but still cling to the concept of Karma. They do believe that you can not escape the earthly bounds of physical being until you achieve Nirvana. They do accept that you keep coming back in physical form and that each form is bound by Karma. Each form somehow records the individuals progress towards Nirvana. Even though some Buddhist groups deny having a soul I fail to see how they can honestly do so since there has to be a mechanism (fantasy or not) to transfer Karma from one form to another. Sounds like a soul to me. The notion of some type of eternal metaphysical entity, whether labeled soul or not, smacks of the God concept.
There are other aspects of Buddhism that indirectly seem to hark back to the God concept. The very structure of religion seems to do so at least to some degree. The doctrines and rites/rituals are usually described in divine terms and are frequently ascribed to a divine source. This is as true of Buddhism as it is of any other religion I've ever read up on. Examine the myths and legends around Siddartha Guatama and you will see many of the same elements of any founding figure of the various world religions.
Buddhism may be somewhat atheistic in comparison to specific world religions but when viewed in light of all belief systems it really isn't atheistic at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)