Dear Bhante
With this I don’t agree. When an atheist rejects the existence of God, he is already adopting a metaphysical stance, and observing modern atheists, their faith that God doesn’t exist, is sometimes stronger than faith of modern theists faith in his existence.
When mind is empty is good to keep it quiet and free from dialectic God exist / God doesn’t exist.
Ignorance screens the truth. It is on that screen that people paint pictures and write underneath their labels “god” and “not-god” and “theism” and “atheism.”
There are certain controversies which involve one in untruth, whichever side one adopts, such as the existence or non-existence of god.
*
The argument that God cannot have created the world because of the suffering, misery and ugliness in it (or some similar form) has always seemed to me as inconclusive for proof that there is no god as the opposite argument that ‘God must have created the world because of the order, joy and beauty in it’ (or some similar form) seemed for proof that there is a god. In either case it is presumed that one knows, can distinguish, what god ought to be.
Both alike imply that the holders of each view will only believe in what they approve of, i.e., in what pleases them.
Now, surely, is it not that assumption, that growth or surcease in one’s subjective self, that ought to be understood and faith in its subsidence cultivated?
Nanamoli Thera
But unlike the metaphysical stance on God which can be avoided by the Buddhists puthujjanas, all puthujjanas whatsoever are attavadins, so in fact they just cannot help, do take a metaphysical stance on “my self”.
Perhaps “cannot help” is not adequate phrasing, indeed with the help of the Lord Buddha one can free oneself from attavad’upadana. But for sure it cannot be done by affirming or negation of self.
“
When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him.39 The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’
M 2
Puthujjana who directly negates self falls into the view ‘no self exists for me’ or one of these:
'I perceive not-self with self’ or ‘I perceive self with not-self’.
Abandoning of ignorance requires desidentification with all things which are taken by the puthujjana as self, and not taking a metaphysical stance on existence non-existence of self, which dialectic is synonymous with taking stance in dialectic on being not being.
“Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.1707.
“Any recluses or brahmins who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape171 in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favouring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.8.
“Any recluses or brahmins who understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are without lust, without hate, without delusion, without craving, without clinging, with vision, not given to favouring and opposing, and they do not delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are freed from suffering, I say. [66]
- “Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.
M 11
After discussing dialectic on being non-being, Lord Buddha mentions upādāna. And only in the Dhamma attavadupadana is taught. Unfortunately as it was said abandoning it requires much more subtle approach than taking stance in dialectic being non-being by affirming or negation or self.