Discussion: Buddhism, Zen, and Atheism

That is a foolish question.

Buddhism is an atheist religion. There is no other type of Buddhism. There is no controversy in this statement. I’ve heard even the Dalai Lama himself clarify this point directly in no uncertain terms.

Anyone who claims to be a Buddhist, yet also believe in a god or gods, is no Buddhist. They don’t understand the fundaments of the teachings of Buddhism, if they are under such illusions. Belief in deities is completely contrary to what the Buddha taught.

Same with belief in souls. Asking where the soul goes after death is doubly foolish, because there is no unalterable independent existing thing that is separate from the body. This idea is an illusion. Asking where it goes, is like asking where a flame goes when you blow it out. The question shows that the questioner doesn’t understand the true nature subject he is asking about. A person who understands what a flame is would not ask where it goes to when it goes out.

Just as the body has no soul, the universe has no god. There is nothing separate from the universe, no great mind existing outside of it in some unaffected state, nor is there some sort of “divine plan”, hence no need universal architect.

Just as no one person decided how the internet would evolve, no single plan is fulfilled by the universe nor by our lives. We co-create our reality and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts, just as the internet is a lot more than sum of all of the servers, or the sum of all the content providers. It is in the interaction between the two that we find the true “internet”. Experience is what is primary in the universe, it creates both subject and object. We like to think of these things as separate, but they are not. Just as the “internet” is not merely the objects or code that create the experience, nor merely the sum total of all the people who contribute to it. People create the content on the internet and that content helps to create discussions and further interactions of all types among people and defines internet communities and affects people lives. The idea of a separate God controlling all of those things is like believing that the internet is really controlled by some evil genius ans websites are all designed just for you – like in the film “The Truman Show”. Belief in a personal god is a delusion based on egotism and misunderstanding.

Well said, Tom. The argument however fails to address the reality that in many parts of Asia, Buddhists have made Buddha into a sort of god, which, I am sure, was not his intention…

I just ran across this site. Even though I noticed the comments are over 5 years old, I figured what the heck…I’ll leave a comment anyway !

Any Buddhist who makes Buddha into an object of worship is weak in his or her understanding. The fact that legions of Buddhists do the worship thing is another example of just how vulnerable human beings are in the face of the incredible fact of their existence in this inexplicable Universe (or Multiverse, as the case may be).

It’s mind-blowing, and it’s no surprise that so many seek shelter in comfortable and soothing superstitions (religion).

The Buddhism-as-religion aspect in Zen should be dropped entirely, as it is the last shred of baggage left over from the birth of Buddhism in northern India centuries ago.

Tom–Buddhists don’t believe in souls? What, then, gets transferred during reincarnation?

David–yeah, Buddha is kind of tricky that way. Technically speaking he is not considered a god; one of Buddhism’s central themes was that Buddha was born an ordinary man (well, a prince). Nevertheless he is often worshipped like a god. At many temples you can find a (usually large) statue of Buddha, and at many religious functions a food offering is usually made.

I’m “full atheist,” my wife is Buddhist atheist. I’ve been to a number of various Buddhist functions and while they are quite interesting (plus they don’t tend to proselytize!), there is a distinct religious flavor to it all that will probably prevent me from ever calling myself a Buddhist.

Well, to me, being a Buddhist means, intrinsically, being an atheist. Buddhism is a inner journey whereas believing in some kind of deity/ies would be the other way round. Plus belief in some kind of supernatural being/s is a waste of time, when you could well be making the most of that time working on yourself.The Buddha taught a way to wake up and not accept anything (not even his words) unless it was for the good of one and all.

My understanding is that Buddhism is a philosophy that in many places is combined with the previously existing religion of those places, giving it a religious undertone.

i.e Buddhisn as practiced in Tibet or India or Japan has been joined with the Anamistic, Shamanistic or other early religions of that Culture.

When a Buddhist in Tibet spins a prayer wheel who is he praying to?

Because people seem to thinkn that Buddhism is so compatable with or in addition to Theistic traditions, we even have christian Buddhists! And Buddhism is one of the few quasi religious ideologies tolerated in China.

As usual people are not rational about their beliefs. The cling to the religion of their parents, community, culture, because they have been conditioned to, but find that adding Buddhist ideas to that dead religion can prolong its life?

As I understand it, Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, nor in any god or gods that are omnipotent. However, a Buddha (there are more than one) is said to be omniscient, and can manifest as whatever a particular being needs or is able to see (if I am ‘ready for it’, if my karma is good, I might see a Buddha, or a Bodhisattva, and you might see a mangy dog). This is what Buddhist teachers teach. And if you ask them, “Is this just metaphorical?” They’ll say, “No. This is how it is.” So, I agree that in a sense, Buddhism isn’t “atheist” in the sense that there are some leaps of faith required. At the same time, Buddhist teachers say that you should go check what they say with other teachers. The Buddha (the historical Buddha Shakyamuni) himself said that one should not believe what he said just b/c he said it, but that you should investigate and see if it is logical.

I have studied Tibetan Buddhism with good teachers for 10 years, and I would classify Buddhism as atheistic, at least relative to other major religions. However, Buddhists do believe in ‘god realms’ where you go if your karma is very good but you’re not enlightened (to put it in simple terms). But these so-called gods are just regular beings in another ‘realm’ if you will, propelled there by their karma. You can also go to a so-called ‘hell realm’ with very bad karma; or the animal realm (you become an animal) with somewhat bad karma, etc. So there are heavens and hells, or they use those terms; but they don’t mean it in the way that a Christian or Muslim means it. The biggest difference is that nothing is eternal. You aren’t free from the cycle of birth and death, of going from the hells to animal to human to god back down to hells, over and over again, until you reach enlightenment. That’s when you finally see the Truth of reality. That’s what Buddhists are trying to attain when they practice.

So, the terminology is similar to other religions, but the belief system is quite different. And I would say that it is atheist because of the fact that there is no creator or all-powerful God or gods.

Finally, someone above asks ‘if Buddhists don’t believe in a soul, what goes to the next body after death?’ The answer is your ‘clear light mind’ or your basic awareness is what goes. This is believed to be something that is not of the physical world. It is simply the continuum of your consciousness, unbroken from beginningless time to now to forever. However, it, like all else in existence, physical or not, is constantly changing. It is a continuum, but the previous moment of it is not the same as the current instance of it and not the same as the very next instance. So, Buddhists would say it is therefore not like the Hindu or Christian belief in some aspect of the self that is unchanging, ie the soul. You might say that it’s just another way to think about the soul; in which case you could call it the soul. Buddhists call it awareness or clear light mind.

Oh, and one last thing: Yes many Buddhists do worship the Buddha, big statues, make offerings. And they do believe that he can help them on certain levels. But he is still not an omnipotent creator God. He is a regular being who saw the Truth completely, and therefore is a mentor. Buddhists show respect because the Buddha showed the way, if you will. So it’s respect and worship of an exceptional being, but not of an all-powerful God. Buddhists know that while the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas may be able to inspire humans, even to manifest in a dream or in the form of another person or animal, etc (so there are some ‘supernatural’ things that they believe can happen) they know that the Buddha can’t just force things to happen. He’s not omnipotent. They can pray for inspiration, but they have to work at it themselves–it’s up to them. They have to meditate and go to teachings and try as hard as they can to utilize the opportunity of being born as a human with intelligence and the luxury of having time to devote to trying to see the Truth.

One additional clarification on the ‘soul’ issue. I say above that Buddhists think that the mind of ‘clear light’ or the most subtle awareness is what goes on from life to life. A very important aspect of why this is different from most other religions’ view of the soul is this: for Buddhists, there is no separation of any kind between a being’s awareness, their stream of consciousness, and the rest of existence. It is sometimes said that everything that makes up the universe is in your body and mind.

There isn’t anything that isn’t there in you. It’s the same, or it’s of the same substance. Like a wave in the ocean–it’s a shape, and you can see it and touch it, it can knock you over, it functions; and yet, it’s just called a ‘wave’ as a convention. It’s a concept. The ultimate reality is that it’s just part of the ocean. It’s just salt water like the rest of the ocean. We are just like the rest of existence. There is no separation.

Any notion that we are ‘me’ and the rest of things are out there, separate from ‘me’ — the ‘air’ the ‘sky’ and ‘you’, ‘him’, etc — that’s us perceiving things in that way. Ultimately, though, it’s all the same flavor, the same thing. That’s a big difference from other religions (including Hinduism) which basically hold the view that there is a soul that is distinct from everything else, that is self-propelled. The Buddhist view is that any independent aspect to the self (or to anything) is not ultimately findable when analyzed thoroughly. The duality falls apart, which is scary at first, but liberating once you really understand it.

Well.. as an ordained Zen Priest, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. I am a Buddhist, an athiest, and a student of science (Biology and Anthropology).

I cannot speak for all kinds of buddhism – as somebody pointed out, there are some schools of Buddhistm which lift the buddha up into the position of a divine super-being… so.. no comment on them – similarly there are some which seem to dig the whole “mystic” thing .. (tantric, diamond vehical stuff).. which I also don’t get.. so I can’t comment on them.

You should know that there are LOTS of ‘flavours’ or schools of Buddhism, and they vary greatly on many points, holding in common sometimes only stuff like the 4 noble truths, and the 8 fold path (wiki them yourself)..

You should also know that the Dali Lama does NOT speak for ALL Buddhists.. he speaks for his own school of Tibetan Buddhism – which is one of several kinds of Tibetan Buddhism. Suggesting that he speaks for all buddhists is like saying the Pope speaks for all Christians – I think the Jehovah’s witnesses would disagree . I for one am highly sceptical of the Tibetan interpretation of re-birth, which is suspect against the general Buddhist belief that there is no “abiding” self or soul.

However… Some Buddhists (including zen buddhists) will claim that they DO believe in God – for certain definitions of god. They will say that if you want them to believe in an all-powerful guy on a throne in the sky then you can go soak your head …. but if you can expand your definition of “god” to include the entire universe and everything in it – then you, me and the dog-poo on the side-walk are all manifestations of god.

This is, of course, not a conventional view of god… and not generally what most people mean .

Yes… there is a religious flavour to buddhism – at least in the group I’m in.. we bow and chant and wear robes and burn incense, we use words like priest, nun, monk, we have temples and such. But.. I wonder if that’s not more simply tradition more than anything else – anyway.. I don’t see it in anyway a contradiction to my athiesm. You see larger and smaller degrees of this depending on the group. And though some athiests may find it a bit uncomfortable, I never have.

I think the Buddha was a free thinker – he was famously purported to have said (in the Kalama sutra) – Don’t believe anything just because somebody important tells you it’s true – investigate it and find out for yourself – (check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta for more specifics)

Anyway.. Buddhism may be the only religion where if somebody showed proof that its founder never existed.. we wouldn’t really care that much.

Just a note on rebirth: as I see it, rebirth is a term that refers to what’s going on when, instant after instant, millisecond, after millisecond, you pick up what you were doing before and proceed with what you’re doing next. That recognizable pattern of continuity (however imperfect) deludes the mind to affirm its intrinsic reality. When you truly recognize this, and “grok” it, rebirths will cease, because you will cease to acknowledge them.

But, of course, if you insist on exploring to the end the meaning of this “rebirth” thing, you are bound to found emptyness in it, as in all things. Words and ideas are just reductionist and simplistic approaches that provide a way to cope with the pragmatical task of grasping reality.