Technically (according to some dictionary entries), “theism” could refer simply to belief in the existence of gods (or devas, presumably). Although, you are correct that more often the word refers specifically to the belief in one all powerful creator God. “Atheism” could simply mean a rejection of the latter definition of theism, but the word also seems to carry certain connotations (at least in monotheistic circles) that wouldn’t be characteristic of many Buddhists (ie., atheists don’t believe in any power, or being, or meaning above and beyond material existence - belief in karma, devas, psychic powers, rebirth, nibbana, and supra-mundane spiritual realizations etc…would seem to violate this proviso).
1 Like
Polytheism or monotheism is incompatible with atheism. The belief in gods or God is not possible for an atheist. The atheism I have encountered is not just the rejection of a belief in gods. Atheists believe in the nonexistence of gods.
There are quite a lot of people who are not atheists or theists. They are undecided and, others are open-minded. I have always felt an open-minded attitude is a requirement for understanding the Dhamma - that is my belief.
The acceptance or rejection of an unproven postulate is by definition: a ‘belief’. Therefore, atheism is a belief system. Many atheists ‘believe’ that they don’t believe in anything - they are faithless. This is atheist mythology - it is their version of the fairies at the end of the garden. Atheists are often reluctant to admit that many of their views are faith-based. Instead, they fantasize about their objectivity. They are dispassionate observers - like research scientists.
Atheists are often devotees of scientism. The belief that science is the only valid means to arrive at facts - in contrast to fictions or unproven theories. I guess scientism is optional for atheists but it seems very popular. The rejection of soul-theory is a given for most atheists. They ‘believe’ in soullessness.
Samkhya - a heterodox teaching that predates Buddhism - postulates the existence of souls but no supreme soul or Godhead. The Buddha reformulated a few Samkhya ideas but went one step further with his not-soul and no supreme soul teachings. The not-self/soul teachings do not include a ‘belief’ in no-self/soul.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
" … Samkhya means number. Samkhya philosophy deals with the number of realities that are present in existence … It exerted profound influence on many scholars in ancient India, China and, according to some, even in Greece … Although originally it might have begun as a theistic philosophy with its roots in the Upanishads, it appears that subsequently it morphed into an atheistic school which assigned no role to God in creation and attributed all causes and effects to Nature. Its main tenets and ideas gradually found their way into main stream Hinduism and several sects of Buddhism." - Jayaram V.
There are many different kinds of atheists. What they all have in common is non-belief in God. Some are materialists; some are not. Some believe is “higher” realms of existence, some do not.
The Buddha extended an invitation: come and see the Dhamma! We need to remember that all these designations and identifications are not our main focus of interest.
I was at a monastery once and a respected Theravada nun was giving a teaching to a group of monks. One monk asked a question about females and whether they can wake up fully to the Dhamma that liberates. The nun answered like this: you cannot be caught in identities like male or female, monk or nun to wake up!
Discrimination based on sex and gender is an important thing to get rid of but awakening involves a different kind of issue - our primal ignorance.
We can wake up because we are human beings - simple! Our belief systems, philosophical views and opinions vary according to our conditioning and Nibbana is the not-conditioned.
Awakening is our main concern in all of this - not ideology. It is the seeing and being of the truth that sets us free. Liberation makes unconditional love and freedom our lived reality.
OK, fine. You brought it up.
I brought it up to get it out of the way. In order to get it out of the way we need to fully recognise that they are hindrances - if we don’t see them clearly.
One of the things that is interesting about the Buddha’s teachings is the distinction he makes between theory and liberating insight. The Buddha was not a philosopher or an ideologue - he was a (seer) - a trans-personal explorer and mapmaker, our true friend and teacher.
One of the points I was trying to make is secular Buddhism - which seems to be a Buddhist practice for agnostics and atheists - is an ideology. Whereas the eightfold path is a form of direct inquiry. The goal of practice is to get beyond ideology and discover the living Dhamma. To do this we need to ‘recognise’ what ideology is and move away from it. Does that make sense?
This applies to religious ideology as well - it is also used to condition the mind of the devotee. We are not interested in a blind allegiance to any belief system. This includes Buddhism as a belief system. The Buddha was not a Buddhist - Nibbana is the not-conditioned. 
‘Secular’ - it is more than secular! As you pointed out, secularism is concerned with curbing the influence and power of religions in secular society. There are numerous examples of secular Buddhist teachings that go beyond the concerns of secularism. You must know this?
Stephen Batchelor may have decided to use the word ‘secular’ after his study of ‘Secular Christianity’ - whatever that means? He is kind of lucky that he decided to call it ‘Secular Buddhism’ if, he had been less sloppy in his choice of words he would have lost a good slice of his market share?
Buddhist Practice for Agnostics and Atheists’ (BPAAISM) sounds a bit peculiar - who would take it seriously? In addition, when his potential customer-base found out that it was a teaching for ‘atheists’ it would take the mystery out of it. Those who are disinterested in or, dislike atheism, would not give his work the attention it deserves. I have learnt a lot from his writings. They have given me a better understanding of important western thinkers.
Although I personally find Batchelor’s approach to the teachings inadequate for my needs, and as an account of what is most important in Buddhism, I see no reason to assume his motivations are a cynical pursuit of customers and markets.
1 Like
They named themselves, so I expect that they mean something specifically nuanced with it, or - dare I say it - different secularists call themselves that word while meaning slightly different sorts of things. But in conversation it’s probably the most general way of saying that someone is separated from religious/spiritual hierarchies while engaging in contemplative practices based on them (Buddhism, for the most part).
Ideologies are (attempts at) consistent systems of thought, and are usually political. Sounds like Buddhism and Secularism. You should probably unpack the connotations you’re bringing to the term; its definition doesn’t really mark off a distinction here.
(And also, maybe unpack this term “living Dhamma”; at first blush it sounds kinda woo-woo to me.)
I agree, Stephen is a good man and I learn a lot from his work. That comment was not meant to be taken seriously. It just seemed to be a way to say what I was trying to express. Metaphorical not literal! 
It was a french materialist who coined the term ‘ideology’ and, ‘Marx’ used it in his political theory. It is used as a tool to talk about a variety of secular ideologies. All ideologies share underlying characteristics. The following quote gives a synopsis of what these characteristics are! Ideology is only one way of talking about what I am trying to convey. There are a number of different language-games that approach the same issue from different angles. This is not the time, or place, to enter into that discussion!
"Meta-ideology is the study of the structure, form, and manifestation of ideologies. Meta-ideology posits that ideology is a coherent system of ideas, relying upon a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis, but are subjective choices that serve as the seeds from which further thought grows. According to this perspective, ideologies are neither right nor wrong, but only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorizing the world. The positive and negative effects of ideology range from the vigor and fervor of true believers to ideological infallibility.
The works of George Walford and Harold Walsby, done under the heading of systematic ideology, are attempts to explore the relationships between ideology and social systems.
David W. Minar describes six different ways in which the word “ideology” has been used:
As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative
As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set
By the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction
By the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization
As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion
As the locus of social interaction
For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:
It must have power over cognitions
It must be capable of guiding one’s evaluations
It must provide guidance towards action
It must be logically coherent … "- New World Encyclopedia
By ‘living Dhamma’ I mean the Dhamma we live - practice - not just think about. The Dhamma is expressed through the way we live - our ‘lived’ reality. The eightfold path is a lived reality not an abstraction. An awakened being is a living expression of the Dhamma - that is fully realised. I don’t see how this is woo-woo?
Of course. I said ‘usually’, not ‘always’. But both groups we’re talking about have ideologies, while you seemed to think that one of them was free of that. Both groups also have instruction about embodying the practice as a daily effort, not as an occasional & scholastic one.
My point stands: these things you’re talking about aren’t what separate these two groups.
I realise that there is a hands on approach to the Dhamma in secular Buddhism. It is practice oriented. I have done the best I can to explain myself. If you disagree with what I have said thats fine. I am satisfied with my efforts so far. Hopefully, there is some value in this conversation. You mentioned earlier how exhausting it can be to find common ground. Perhaps you were right after all - ho hum!
Maybe just define the term the way you’re using it. Then we’ll see if there’s a difference between Secular & non-Secular Buddhisms in this regard.
I think we agree about embodying the practice, and how both groups have this. So far, so good!
What is the other group you are referring to? I have talked about the religious and secular. I am not in either camp! I have talked about religious and secular ideology. You seem to have a problem with my use of the term ideology. I have done everything I can to explain what I mean when I use the term. What more can I do - if you don’t see my point by now then I give up - best wishes, Laurence
The two groups are Secular and (presumably) Traditional. You said
This means that you think Secular Buddhism is an ideology, whereas the Eightfold Path is not an ideology but instead a form of direct inquiry which is free from ideology. But Traditional Buddhism (where the Eightfold Path first occurs) is also an ideology, so I wanted to clarify this issue. They are both ideologies, and they both say that one should embody the practice using direct inquiry.
How’s that sound?
I am saying that there are secular and religious ideologies. I am saying that the eightfold path is a method of inquiry - taught by the Buddha. I am referring to the eightfold path -specifically. It is not an ideology it is a practice! What we practice the Buddha simply lived! The Buddha did not need to practice anything. Right view, Right intention, Right speech were just like breathing in and out for the Buddha. We may view the Dhamma as an ideology or a belief system but this is not how it is for fully awakened beings. They are the Dhamma that liberates. There is no gap between theory and practice.
The Buddha said: when you see the Buddha you see the Dhamma. When you see the Dhamma you see the Buddha. The Buddha was a living embodiment of what he had realised.
A living embodiment of what he had realised. The Dhamma as a (lived reality). What other reality do you think the eightfold path involves? Practice is redundant for a Buddha - an awakened being - is that clear?
The Buddha did not practice mindfulness he was simply mindful. The Buddha did not practice Sama-Samadhi - why? Sama-Samadhi is not something that we do - it just happens when we stop controlling and remain aware. We cannot put ourselves into the Jhanas through ‘practicing’ a technique. A technique can tranquillise the mind - get us to calm down - but Jhana requires a letting go. We need to let go of control before mental absorption takes place.
Everything calms down by itself if we remain aware and non-reactive when we sit in silence. This is part of what I had in mind in the opening comment: we begin to (see) why the Dhamma extends beyond a conventional frame of reference. There is the unique joy and happiness that is found in meditative absorption and, there are the boundless and subjectless happenings in formlessness. None of these beautiful or exalted states are the result of directing attention in any way whatsoever. They happen by themselves! This cannot be understood in a conventional sense because the actual transition from pre-Jhana stillness into absorption has nothing to do with an idea or view we may entertain. We can think about these matters but that has has nothing to do with the happening itself!
We may have an interest in theory and practice but all the enlightenment factors are ‘fulfilled’ - perfected - in a fully awakened being. No ideology, no theory or practice is required - is that clear?
The Buddha practiced diligently for many years before attaining nibbana. It was a struggle, not a smooth and easy process. He tried a variety of different disciplines and techniques before arriving at the ones that he found most conducive to awakening. But he incorporated aspects of what he had learned from others into his own path. That includes some of the meditation techniques he learned from Brahmin ascetics and the ethos of ahimsa he learned from Jains.
No, what the Buddha realised - his awakening - is not something he picked up from Jainism or anywhere else. The Buddha did not say at any point in his teachings: “I picked this practice up from the Jains.” He introduced one practice that I know of to appease the Jains. Ahimsa was around before Mahavira, the founder of ‘Jainism’ - as we know it today. The Jains seem to be part of a lineage that predates the Buddha as the Buddha said he had been a ‘nigantha/jain’ in a past life.
The Buddha engaged in various practices before his awakening. There is some controversy with regard to the Jhanas he learned from his teachers before his awakening. Just before his awakening he recalled a spontaneous experience of ‘Samadhi’ that had happened under a crab-apple tree when he was a boy. This recollection provided a starting point that culminated in his awakening. This is the account recorded in the teachings. The Buddha was not at all fond of the Jains - he taught that their practices were pernicious. The Jains did not seem to like the Buddha - either - judging from the exchanges between them and the Buddha mentioned in the Suttas. What the Buddha realised is not a philosophy of life. He was not a philosopher or an ideologue, he was a seer!
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/n/nigantha_nataputta.htm
1 Like