Buddhism vs. Atheism
2007.02.23
There seems to be a renewed interest in atheism, especially in the western world, for a host of different reasons. The discussions vary from how certain countries are at risk of becoming theocracies and liberties are compromised to why atheism is harmful to the society. My intention is not to write about atheism or why it is good or bad, but to explore how it compares to Buddhism. Atheism could be different things to different people, and Buddhism also has various flavours; I have but a general idea of atheism, and I only know, to what extent an interested layman may, about Theravada Buddhism, the oldest surviving school that has preserved the original Pali Canon, the Buddhist scriptures. I’m not an authority on either, so you should take everything in here with a grain of salt.
Ignorance is no bliss
Some time back, I stumbled on a couple of videos claiming Buddhism is “stupid and evil” by a self-proclaimed conservative atheist. I understand that he by no means represents the entire atheist community, and his ways of expressing ideas are rather unique, but the content did reveal a certain lack of awareness of what Buddhism really is, and how it relates to atheism. He was no doubt confused by the conflicting views of different Buddhist schools too. This, and various other misinformed analyses of Buddhism got me interested in this subject. For that, I’m grateful to our conservative atheist.
At a glance
Wikipedia defines atheism as the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods
.
This definition of atheism aligns with the Buddhist teaching that there is no theistic God(s). Buddhism does not deal with the beginning or the end of the universe, either in space or time, let alone the creation of it other than saying there’s no creator. Such discussions are part of the fourteen questions which the Buddha refused to answer. Thus, the Gautama Buddha is known by some to be one of the first atheists of modern time.
While denying the existence of an omnipotent Creator God, Buddhism does explain in elaborate detail the different “levels” of beings, of which the manussa loka, the world of humans and human-like beings is but one of many. There are satvas (beings) in “higher” levels than the humans, such as the devas and brahmas. The literal translation for these words would be deities or gods, but such labels should be used without their “supernatural” baggage. They are very much a part of nature, having not transcended the samsara, the endless circle of life, which is at the heart of Buddhist teachings known as the four noble truths.
This leaves us with the interesting question: does believing in the four noble truths conflict with being an atheist? Since karma and rebirth have nothing to do with deities or gods in the common sense of those terms, one could say Buddhists are atheists. What if we extend the definition of atheism to include the rejection of everything supernatural? The four noble truths and the teachings of the Buddha which are based on those four main pillars would indeed look “stupid and evil” to atheists who don’t believe in them. This has led some to call for stricter definitions of the term so that Buddhism could be excluded from Atheism. It is ironical how the same atheists are pleasantly surprised when the very same ideas are presented in a different form.
Buddhist rejection of “extended” atheism
Buddha explained that all beliefs could be divided in to two main categories: Sasvatavada (or Bhava ditthi), view of permanence or eternalism, and Ucchedavada (or Vibhava ditthi), the view of annihilation. To simplify, those who believe in eternal bliss (or demise) after death are the sasvatavadins; those who believe that everything of a “being” ends after death are the ucchedavadins. Both these views are based on the fundamental belief of atta (or atmavada), self-identification, in any of the three forms: this is mine (etam mama); this I am (esoham asmi); and this is my self (eso me atta).
Buddhism rejects these two opposing views and introduces the middle path: paticcasamuppada, the doctrine of dependent origination. Buddhism also rejects self-identification and introduces Panchaskandha, the five aggregates, beyond which there’s no self.
Thus, atheism that rejects a theistic God, rejects only that, and leaves everything else unanswered does not contradict Buddhism because the existence of a person is not discussed. However, “extended” atheism which takes a materialistic view and affirms the existence of a person and the annihilation of him/her at death contradicts Buddhism because it is based on self-identification.
Objective reality
Anatta, the lack of “self”, is best realized by studying the Buddhist teachings of objective reality. As explained in the Abidhamma, it is a deep and complex teaching which leads to, and is only truly understood once one attains, Nibbana. I could only discuss it with my limited understanding. May those who are more knowledgeable correct me if I’m wrong.
One thing that I realize as I’m writing this is how language could fail: in many instances where the Pali has to be translated in to a foreign language, foreign not only in structure and semantics but also in the ways it has evolved and the ideas it has been developed to express, the original meaning could be lost or distorted. My lack of knowledge in the most appropriate English terms to be used for the Pali doesn’t help either. There are plenty of resources assembled by people much better than me for the interested reader to learn more about Theravada Buddhism. I’m emphasizing Theravada because, although assimilation of different cultures and religions is inevitable, a distorted version never really reveals the truth.
As one explores the Dhamma, it is important to keep an open mind when it comes to beliefs, as they are just that: beliefs, not facts. One would do well to keep in mind what Gautama Buddha taught the Kalamas of Kesaputta:
Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.
Gautama Buddha, Kalama Sutta
