Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Skeptical Buddhism -- What it is and is not.
Cinorjer
Veteran
All right, a lot of the more conflictive forum topics are of the "What if I don't believe in reincarnation?" sort, and at the heart of the conflict are Buddhists with different ideas of what it means to practice Buddhism. For better or worse, some of us in the West in particular have been labeled as practicing Skeptical Buddhism, defined as a practice that rejects the metaphysical elements such as literal reincarnation, the actual existence of gods, demons, heaven and hell realms, or enlightened Masters incapable of mistakes or capable of performing miracles. So in this corner, I'd like to both give my own experience and start a conversation that at least gives us an accurate picture of what might be the true Western Buddhism emerging, like it or not.
First, it's not entirely accurate for me to say 'Skeptical Buddhists believe this or that" any more than it is for any Buddhist to say "Buddhists believe..." Even traditional Buddhism has such a wide range of beliefs and practices that we are always in danger of claiming our particular set of beliefs are the true Buddhist beliefs. I can't speak for all skeptical Buddhists, but I can tell you about my particular variety of skepticism.
Let's dive in head first. Saying we must believe something because "Buddha said it" is nonsense to a skeptic. Unless you have a time machine and know how to speak his language, you don't know what he said. So what you mean is, "This sutra as translated into words I understand and passed down through the centuries claims Buddha said it." Nothing wrong with that. We owe a great debt to the monks who dedicated their lives to recording and preserving the Dharma for us. However, that does not elevate the sutras to the level of Inerrant Gospel where a statement must be true because it's part of some sacred scripture. The mistake a skeptic sees here is called "Appeal to Authority." A believer usually thinks this means we reject the sutras entirely then, and since this is the dharma, it means we reject the dharma. That is also not true. What skeptics see in the sutras are intelligent, wise, compassionate human beings trying to make sense of their world and teachings and struggling to put that understanding in words. But, they were still human beings, sometimes wrong, subject to the limitations of their knowledge about the world, and yes they were not above sometimes putting words in the Buddha's mouth to make a point and for the greater good.
So being in the sutras is a start, but a skeptical Buddhist also considers the overall context, the world this person lived in, what question the writer was trying to answer, and how the statement fits into our own understanding and practice. In other words, we trust our own ability to make sense of the world. Most of the time what we read makes sense, because those old monks were smart people and the logical, observed dharma as taught by Buddha is what attracted us in the first place.
Sometimes what we read is a puzzle so we shrug our shoulders and figure sooner or later it will become clear. So far, there's no difference between skeptical Buddhism and any other. But once in a while, we find something that conflicts with other important parts of the Dharma as we understand it or with reality as we know it to be. Here is where we part ways with the traditional believers. If I could believe in the impossible simply because it's written down and that's what I'm told to believe, I'd still be a Christian.
The most common example for me is reincarnation. My journey through many, many years of Zen practice means the concept of No-self is central to my understanding, and in my case literal reincarnation cannot be crammed into this view of what we are. So I get in a lot of discussions with people who want to know how a Buddhist cannot believe in reincarnation or the past life karma that clings to the belief. Well, because there is nothing to be reincarnated. Next question?
I cannot dismiss concerns that we're rejecting parts of the Dharma we don't like. That's what people mean when they use the phrase "cherry picking". I will point out I'd love for reincarnation to be true. I'd also love to see my dear Grandmother in Heaven. Wishing something was true does not make it so. We don't pick and choose the parts of the Dharma we like.
So any thoughts, questions, counter arguments? I don't think people are gullible, or foolish, or wrong to believe different from me. You can tell me I'm an idiot and I don't care, although if you insult my dog it tends to set me off. This is where one skeptical Buddhist is coming from.
Oh, and while I've read some Stephen Batchelor and admire his willingness to speak out, I don't consider him our spokesman. He is an important voice that sparks some needed discussions, thought.
First, it's not entirely accurate for me to say 'Skeptical Buddhists believe this or that" any more than it is for any Buddhist to say "Buddhists believe..." Even traditional Buddhism has such a wide range of beliefs and practices that we are always in danger of claiming our particular set of beliefs are the true Buddhist beliefs. I can't speak for all skeptical Buddhists, but I can tell you about my particular variety of skepticism.
Let's dive in head first. Saying we must believe something because "Buddha said it" is nonsense to a skeptic. Unless you have a time machine and know how to speak his language, you don't know what he said. So what you mean is, "This sutra as translated into words I understand and passed down through the centuries claims Buddha said it." Nothing wrong with that. We owe a great debt to the monks who dedicated their lives to recording and preserving the Dharma for us. However, that does not elevate the sutras to the level of Inerrant Gospel where a statement must be true because it's part of some sacred scripture. The mistake a skeptic sees here is called "Appeal to Authority." A believer usually thinks this means we reject the sutras entirely then, and since this is the dharma, it means we reject the dharma. That is also not true. What skeptics see in the sutras are intelligent, wise, compassionate human beings trying to make sense of their world and teachings and struggling to put that understanding in words. But, they were still human beings, sometimes wrong, subject to the limitations of their knowledge about the world, and yes they were not above sometimes putting words in the Buddha's mouth to make a point and for the greater good.
So being in the sutras is a start, but a skeptical Buddhist also considers the overall context, the world this person lived in, what question the writer was trying to answer, and how the statement fits into our own understanding and practice. In other words, we trust our own ability to make sense of the world. Most of the time what we read makes sense, because those old monks were smart people and the logical, observed dharma as taught by Buddha is what attracted us in the first place.
Sometimes what we read is a puzzle so we shrug our shoulders and figure sooner or later it will become clear. So far, there's no difference between skeptical Buddhism and any other. But once in a while, we find something that conflicts with other important parts of the Dharma as we understand it or with reality as we know it to be. Here is where we part ways with the traditional believers. If I could believe in the impossible simply because it's written down and that's what I'm told to believe, I'd still be a Christian.
The most common example for me is reincarnation. My journey through many, many years of Zen practice means the concept of No-self is central to my understanding, and in my case literal reincarnation cannot be crammed into this view of what we are. So I get in a lot of discussions with people who want to know how a Buddhist cannot believe in reincarnation or the past life karma that clings to the belief. Well, because there is nothing to be reincarnated. Next question?
I cannot dismiss concerns that we're rejecting parts of the Dharma we don't like. That's what people mean when they use the phrase "cherry picking". I will point out I'd love for reincarnation to be true. I'd also love to see my dear Grandmother in Heaven. Wishing something was true does not make it so. We don't pick and choose the parts of the Dharma we like.
So any thoughts, questions, counter arguments? I don't think people are gullible, or foolish, or wrong to believe different from me. You can tell me I'm an idiot and I don't care, although if you insult my dog it tends to set me off. This is where one skeptical Buddhist is coming from.
Oh, and while I've read some Stephen Batchelor and admire his willingness to speak out, I don't consider him our spokesman. He is an important voice that sparks some needed discussions, thought.
0
Comments
I think you make a good point about how we may be tempted to adapt our acceptance or faith in certain aspects e.g. asuras (deamons) or for some reincarnation. I feel the important aspect here is prioritisation of what is most acceptable and most beneficial to help us progress.
Later aspects such as realms, asuras and for some reincarnation can become more logical or more visible. My point is that it is better to start the journey than to turn back due to what appears to lie ahead.
There is something interesting about the point you make about reincarnation and no-self, which is that to understand no-self better it is easier to investigate reincarnation. The same applies to many concepts e.g. impermanence, suffering and the four noble truths etc; once we look into them all jointly the picture becomes much clearer than looking at each one separately. This is a type of holistic approach which I would argue is required to penetrate the Dharma.
Metta.
One of my favourite pearls of wisdom is from Ajahn Sumedho.. "Just be a little worm that knows two words .... let go.
I have found myself in the past clinging to ideas as if they were "me" or "my self identity", which didn't help later.
I recently read an article which explains that it is actually useful to adopt the right view and create a sense of self on which we can lean. In doing so we are able to avoid getting caught up with the wrong views. This in turn leads to anatta and the end of suffering.
May I ask you a hypothetical question
But I guess it would have to make a difference, wouldn't it?
I agree it’s not cherry picking.
My grandson is a sweet kid and his parents teach him literal reincarnation.
(They didn’t get the idea from me.)
I fear the day he talks to me about it and wants to know. At some point I won’t have any tricks left and I can’t avoid the question any more.
I’ll tell him it’s a lot of rubbish. And it’ll break my heart.
What would you do?
Allow him to investigate it for himself and make his own decision. It would be rare thing that we keep a firm unchanging concept of anything for life anyway.
I wish we could come up with a better, more positive term for "Skeptical" Buddhism, since it emphasizes what people like me do NOT believe, rather than what I DO believe (the basic 4/8 etc)
Further, there won't be A TRUE western Buddhism -- it will be as fractured as the global Buddhist traditions, since there will be representatives of all paths that incorporate Buddhist practice. Acceptance of ALL Buddhist traditions, new and old, ought to be the unifying goal.
I don't dispel a Catholic's belief in saints and I don't dispel a Tibetan Buddhist's belief in gods and realms...
I would just like for them to accept my own persuasion -- and not even have traditional Buddhists insinuate that eventually I'll "get it", if I only study/practice hard enough.... I KNOW where I draw the line, and I'm very comfortable with my way of thinking - just as comfortable as they are.
Truth to tell, though, I probably sound just as bad at times when I talk about a desire for justice blocking a clear mind and an egocentric view of reality. I know it's something I have to work on.
Great thread, my friend. I do believe Buddha was pointing to the truth we must find and experience for ourselves. He didn't even want us to take his word on faith. I realise that is just my understanding and agree that I cannot really know if he thought that or not but it's ok because it works anyways. Skepticism and looking deeply is a big part of Buddhism in my honest opinion so it is almost redundant.
I guess I'd be classed as a skeptical Buddhist but I don't see it as being skeptical just because I trust my judgement as to what makes sense to me and what doesn't. That is a part of what makes me Buddhist, lol!
As for reincarnation, even as these "selves" are not permanent entities doesn't mean we are not in a process of reincarnation. It could just be that we are the infinite reincarnations of the same thing.
The universe is my Sangha and since I like to visit different centers (and temples if I get to see any) and learn with a pluralistic attitude I would classify myself as non-sectarian.
I classify myself as an agnostic Buddhist; especially on the subject of reincarnation.
I find myself believing in it more each day, but there is no way that I, or anyone, can actually prove it. As far as I'm concerned, agnosticism in any belief is the only logical conclusion.
Nearly half of the statements of what the Buddha recommended in the Kalama sutta when he said "Nor Upon", are referring to oneself.
I would keep it simple. And I would want to be honest with him.
It could be easier to keep it vague and open. “Vague and open” is safe and will avoid conflict.
But I really don’t care about this kind of safety very much...
Okay, you're right about that.
There are so many ways it could work. A continuance without holding onto one individual.
Even the Dalai Lamas don't remember what it is like to be their predecessor.
I'm not saying I believe it or that I don't, just that it is possible.
Children that were not exposed to the idea of reincarnation have stated they were somebody else before being here. My little neice said to her folks one day "I wasn't always Abbey, you know."
She's actually quite an inspiration to me. When she was six and she found out that she was eating a chicken just like the ones she was playing with the day before she freaked. She was very horrified and said she was never doing that again and they couldn't make her. She was crying and hurt that her parents could be doing such a thing and making her do it too.
She's ten now and hasn't eaten meat since. Her parents are very good about it and make sure she gets her protein. She tried to say she didn't want veggies either but that didn't fly, haha.
I guess that's now off topic, sorry.
A zen student walks up to his old master and asks: "Master, what will happen after we die?" The master answers "I don't know". The student asks: "But master, you have been studying life & death for your entire life, how can you not know?" The master's wise reply was: "Because I'm not death yet."
The moral here being that every view of life after death -beit rebirth or heaven or annihilation or whatever- is always based on belief. (Unless we have some rare insight, which skeptics probably don't belief in anyway
I don’t believe in it. I think there are no good reasons for assuming it to be real. Religious people believe all kinds of nonsense, and I don’t see how the idea of rebirth is a whole lot different. Sometimes I’m brief and blunt and I say something like “it’s rubbish”.
That’s what I think but I’d better take more time and say that I don’t think it is a plausible theory.
Otherwise why not just be a kind wise person? That's one motivation and a good one. But there is more added when trying to escape the eight worldly winds. Pleasure and pain. Gain and loss. Praise and blame. Fame and infamy.
I'm not saying you can't achieve that without believing in rebirth, but it is a strong motivation.
For me it’s different.
Liberation is something to be attained here and now. Where else?
What do past and future have to do with it?
conviction and added 'honest' - just so the belief would be understood as following some thought and reflection.
My point really was that once you have a good, sound reason for your belief, it is beyond like/dislike. To bring this back to on-topic, no way can I believe in re-incarnation/rebirth, even though I have known about this idea/construct since my early teens. It doesn't fit with my way of thinking and that is that. Right/wrong, like/dislike has lost its significance for me, and yet I do not dispute that someone else may need to believe these ideas.
The 'fooling' oneself IMO enters the picture when people make excuses to support certain beliefs, e.g. things that they think they need to be happy or to say and do to feel accepted etc
First, are all beliefs equally valid if nobody can prove which one is correct, at least with enough evidence for it to cross the line from possible to probable? To a skeptic, the proper logical position is no belief without enough evidence to make something possible. Belief requires evidence. That evidence might be personal experience or observation. It might be a conclusion from authorities that we trust are experts or at least competent to make that conclusion on the topic. Just because even authority is subject to being questioned does not mean a skeptic automatically rejects authority.
In other words, a skeptic's beliefs are subject to change when evidence shows we were wrong. For belief in something incredible or supernatural, that evidence must cross a high bar. High, but it is always possible.
Now, for the tricky absolute versus relative truth. Notice at no place in the above lengthy paragraph did I use the word "truth". That's because truth is one of those absolute words. In the same way someone cannot be partially pregnant, something cannot be mostly true. Something is either true or it is not.
But, you say, what if it's true that our consciousness continues on after death? Then it will happen whether I believe in it or not. My belief is contingent on evidence that something is probable. The evidence so far does not meet my standards.
So all beliefs are not equally valid, because not everyone applies the same standards of evidence before declaring something as true or even probable. Certainly any of us can be wrong. In skeptical dictionaries, there is something called "self-deception" that points to the ability of people to be wrong. In Zen Buddhism we call it "illusion" and a lot of our training is learning to see past the illusion of self, to cultivate a clear mind.
So is something true? I shrug my shoulders. I have no answer to give.
So do I believe something is true? I can say yes or no and provide reasons why.
My approach to Buddhism, though, couldn't be defined as Cinorjer defined it in the original post, as "a practice that rejects the metaphysical elements such as literal reincarnation" -- since, when I examine my knowledge and perceptions, I find that I can't *know* that the things defined as "metaphysical" don't exist simply because I can't see them. I follow the Buddha in neither clinging to beliefs based on no evidence, nor rejecting beliefs that have no good evidence; I simply set them aside as concepts that are not helpful in reducing dukkha. If we can't *see* the way metaphysical things work (and I mean really *see*, not just try to match experience up to events, even though there are other explanations) then we can't make intelligent choices based on them. We have to be able to have direct experience of cause and effect for them to be truly helpful.
IMHO.
Secular versus skeptical? I'll have to think about that one. We have the problem that words mean whatever a culture speaking the language want them to, and that meaning shifts between groups.
I see secular as meaning non-religous or at least not associated with a religious order, and my own skeptical Buddhism is very much a religion to me. Secular Buddhism seems to mean Buddhism is treated as philosophy on the intelectual level and the metaphor that comes to mind is wading around in the shallow end of the pool instead of plunging in head first. I don't think people can transform their life with a secular philosophy, but in this case I may be wrong just because I couldn't do it. That pesky relative belief, again.
The only real question I have in all this is, can someone call agnostic a valid position, or are we avoiding a difficult choice? After all, if a skeptic knows that all belief is based on logic, then you also know that it is not up to us to disprove something. If someone who believes in a God says, well you can't disprove there is a God, either, the answer should be that it is not up to me to completely disprove anything before I claim disbelief, not that it means both belief and nonbelief are equally valid.
When we consider humanity as a series of cultures with their own beliefs and worldview through the sweep of history, we see beliefs in what happens after death as just another variable that defined a particular culture. Every culture that has come and gone had their own idea of what came after, and each of them was certain in spite of no evidence that they were correct. Do you believe there is a big feasting hall in the afterlife where brave warriors hold a big kegger party while boning valhalla maidens for eternity? Why not?
Because you're not a Viking, not because you have proof against the belief. The evidence from studying history is that humanity is hardwired to believe in something surviving after death in some way, but that what you believe in particular isn't important and depends. That is what I believe is behind reincarnation, instead of believing in one particular version--until evidence shows one version is right. God, I hope it isn't the eternal party.
But why is there a need to "claim disbelief"? Why is there a need to take a position? Why not just say "I don't know"?
Why is there a need to be skeptical? What does it achieve?
Does it matter if you believe demons are capable of possessing people? Does it matter if you believe some people have magical powers that normal people don't? You can't disprove either one. But, it does matter if you're a child tortured to death because your parents think you're possessed and they need to drive it out, and it matters if you are a woman in Africa stoned to death because people believe you are a witch. Same fuzzy thinking at fault.
Certainly beliefs in reincarnation are not usually dangerous and "I don't know" is better than blind belief, in my opinion. But, sometimes you have to confront beliefs for the sake of others. Saying, "I don't know" is giving people permission to consider their belief just as valid as anyone.
I don't know where to draw the line. I'm not one of those militant skeptics who consider it my mission to stomp on religious beliefs as superstitions. That's an extreme that falls into the trap of becoming what you hate. I guess it just depends.
It may be one step beyond agnosticism in that instead of simply saying "I don't know" it's saying "I don't believe so and here's why" or "Wow, I never thought of it that way before... So would that mean..?"
Being a skeptical Buddhist kind of goes hand-in-hand with being non-sectarian, lol.
1. Other peoples' beliefs are our business;
2. We can judge what beliefs are "good" for people?
I imagine most sects have a few skeptical Buddhists. Actually, it is likely because of these Buddhists that differing sects even emerged.
That flies in the face of my comment about non-sectarianism going hand in hand with skepticism but it's true in my case.
I'd say that anyone who has equally studied more than one form of Buddhism and chose one over the other would be a skeptical Buddhist.
Would a group of truely skeptical Buddhists ever really agree on anything aside from the main tenents of Buddhism? If we consider the nature of uniqueness, I doubt it.