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.
Secular Buddhism? Religious Buddhism? Why not both? Or neither?
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
On this forum (and on others that I won't mention for fear of retaliation :eek: ), like in real life, there seems to be this "battle" when it comes to secularism and religion.
"We don't need silly superstitions. Just follow the 8FP and 5P. It will do you good to be more secular with your Buddhist practice".
"No! Don't ignore what *insert sutra here* says. A rebirth in one of the hells must be avoided"!
That being said, I would like to say that I understand the appeal of secular Buddhism and the rejection of more supernatural claims. However, I also understand the appeal of ritual, deity yoga, mantras, pujas, etc.
With this in mind, why does there need to be (a bit) of a confrontation between these two seemingly opposite spectrums of Buddhist practice? Why can't one, say, be both secular and religious with their practice? Or neither?
Let me use myself as an example. Let me start off by saying that, in the political sense, I'm definitely secular. I also do hold some secular Buddhist beliefs as well. I don't believe that scriptures or monks & nuns are infallible. I believe that all three are subject to criticism if A.) there is a passage we don't agree with or B.) a monk/nun says or does something that seems to go against what one views as right views, speech, etc. I also don't believe in literal Karma, and am agnostic to rebirth (although I do relatively believe in it). Humanism is also a fairly big part of my philosophy.
However, I do hold many religious views as well. Leftover from my Hindu days, I like pujas and will start performing them soon. I believe in a mini-pantheon of deities (Hindu, Buddhist and otherwise) as Dharma protectors (not as the supreme god of the universe). I believe that ritual, when done mindfully, can help us center on our practice. I also can't help but to chant along with mantras when one begins and find great spiritual value in them. I also am giving Pure Land Buddhism a chance (even though I have my own interpretation of what exactly Amitabha and the Pure Land are); when, not even weeks ago, I would have discarded it due to it having a "savior figure".
What is the point I'm trying to make with this? Well, despite the fact that we humans like to create a black and white duality with virtuality everything, there is no need for internet bickering over labels such as "secular" or "religious". Don't get me wrong, while I love a good discussion, and while they certainly have their place in vocabulary, it eventually gets to the point where the words are so overused, they they almost become meaningless.
As practitioners of Dharma (this also includes Hindus, Sikhs and Jains), the general goal is to attain enlightenment/nirvana/moshka/liberation/union from the cycle of birth and death (literal or metaphorical). While, of course, what "enlightenment" exactly is is incredibly subjective, we are all pretty much in the same boat. We all suffer, we all have sorrow and anger. But we also experience joy and happiness as well. We are all Buddhists, no matter what words we use to label such. I think that's much more important than how one practices; as long as they practice with all of their heart and mind to the best of their abilities. That is much more important than whether one is "secular" or "religious".
:om:
"We don't need silly superstitions. Just follow the 8FP and 5P. It will do you good to be more secular with your Buddhist practice".
"No! Don't ignore what *insert sutra here* says. A rebirth in one of the hells must be avoided"!
That being said, I would like to say that I understand the appeal of secular Buddhism and the rejection of more supernatural claims. However, I also understand the appeal of ritual, deity yoga, mantras, pujas, etc.
With this in mind, why does there need to be (a bit) of a confrontation between these two seemingly opposite spectrums of Buddhist practice? Why can't one, say, be both secular and religious with their practice? Or neither?
Let me use myself as an example. Let me start off by saying that, in the political sense, I'm definitely secular. I also do hold some secular Buddhist beliefs as well. I don't believe that scriptures or monks & nuns are infallible. I believe that all three are subject to criticism if A.) there is a passage we don't agree with or B.) a monk/nun says or does something that seems to go against what one views as right views, speech, etc. I also don't believe in literal Karma, and am agnostic to rebirth (although I do relatively believe in it). Humanism is also a fairly big part of my philosophy.
However, I do hold many religious views as well. Leftover from my Hindu days, I like pujas and will start performing them soon. I believe in a mini-pantheon of deities (Hindu, Buddhist and otherwise) as Dharma protectors (not as the supreme god of the universe). I believe that ritual, when done mindfully, can help us center on our practice. I also can't help but to chant along with mantras when one begins and find great spiritual value in them. I also am giving Pure Land Buddhism a chance (even though I have my own interpretation of what exactly Amitabha and the Pure Land are); when, not even weeks ago, I would have discarded it due to it having a "savior figure".
What is the point I'm trying to make with this? Well, despite the fact that we humans like to create a black and white duality with virtuality everything, there is no need for internet bickering over labels such as "secular" or "religious". Don't get me wrong, while I love a good discussion, and while they certainly have their place in vocabulary, it eventually gets to the point where the words are so overused, they they almost become meaningless.
As practitioners of Dharma (this also includes Hindus, Sikhs and Jains), the general goal is to attain enlightenment/nirvana/moshka/liberation/union from the cycle of birth and death (literal or metaphorical). While, of course, what "enlightenment" exactly is is incredibly subjective, we are all pretty much in the same boat. We all suffer, we all have sorrow and anger. But we also experience joy and happiness as well. We are all Buddhists, no matter what words we use to label such. I think that's much more important than how one practices; as long as they practice with all of their heart and mind to the best of their abilities. That is much more important than whether one is "secular" or "religious".
:om:
9
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For example I see The Virgin Mary as an emanation of Tara, I see some atheists as deeply spiritual truth seekers and Islam as a personification of peace. In fact if I saw 'the Buddha on the road', chances is he would have been killed by the local Buddhists . . . That is how deluded I have become. I am a hopeless case. :crazy:
and now back to the battle grounds . . .
If you have studied comparative religions all come to similar conclusions on many things, whatever the theism. All appear to emphasise developing a working meditation practice to become liberated from the human condition.
Hinduism, appears to have derived similar conclusions regarding time and space as modern day science, but through meditation and contemplation rather than experimenting with particles and waves.
However you approach it, just hold these terms loosely and not get bound up in the argument - it goes nowhere!
But Buddhism is not wrapped around a God. Buddhism is wrapped around a human insight and observations. All such insights should be open to discussion, questioning, and -- yes -- refinement and even disagreement. This is the philosophy model of Buddhism.
When people approach Buddhism from two different directions, we see our disagreements. When we argue, we're speaking two different languages. I suppose this has always happened and will always continue. For myself, if I didn't have a good debate once in a while where I can climb on my soap box and give a sermon, I'd probably go out and preach to the squirrels to keep from exploding.
But in my secret heart, I envy those Buddhists who so easily come to unshakable belief and faith, just a little. Sometimes I feel like a hungry man looking through a window at people sitting at a table to feast. If sometimes I seem a bit testy, I can only ask forgiveness and understanding. I love the monk who gushes over the lasted reincarnated tulku while my rational mind wonders what's wrong with those people. But in the end, it's all good. We're all Buddhists. Some of us are more squirrelly than others, I guess.
As for the topic. In my life I've seen what religion and religious people can do in a negative light. I also have seen the same arrogance and negativity from people on the secular side. An example I always use is atheists vs theists. When I see the war between atheists and theists, I see them both in the wrong and acting the same exact way. Both have an utter confidence in their own beliefs and both have no compassion or understand for the others views.
The bottom line is this, have confidence in what you believe, and compassion for what others believe, no matter what you think of their belief. And always keep an open mind.
What i do have is a strong confidence, because so far in my practice what the buddha said has been confirmed. I can see someone having unwavering confidence in the practice, so long as the buddha's dhamma continues to be confirmed. If it stops being confirmed then im sure my confidence would end.
Its similar to the confidence someone has when they get into a plane. regardless of irrational fears, there is a extremely strong confidence based on experience that the plane will land safely and you will continue to live.
Saddha - Pali word of the day
saddha [saddhaa]: Conviction, faith. A confidence in the Buddha that gives one the willingness to put his teachings into practice. Conviction becomes unshakeable upon the attainment of stream-entry (see sotapanna).- from Access to Insight, “A Glossary of Pali
Being simply a-religious means your ethical code is the Ohio Revised Code (if you live in Ohio) and Federal laws, i.e. ethics becomes just secular law. This is a pretty dull sense of ethics-- Buddhists have been thinking about ethics in a sophisticated manner for 2500 years, so they have a head start on what ever competing secular systems exist.
You can't get rid of culture-- there will still be excuses for holidays, even for atheists. Tomorrow is Bodhi day, I'll celebrate it-- it's a reminder to practice & an excuse for a celebration.
The Marxist interpretation of religion is that it is simply paracitism, i.e. some holy man tricks the less smart into giving money for no benefits, i.e. no more benefit that I'd get from buying ocean front property in Arizona. However, I take the position that stuff that looks like religious activity is in direct competition with psychologists, psychiatrists and ethical and illegal drug dealers, and to some extent in competition with consumerism (i.e. buying stuff to become happy and to have meaning and identity in life). Buddhist practice offer a solution to the problems that atheists are trying to solve when they pop prozac, chug vodka, or shell out money to therapists (or spend money on status symbols)--- and the objectively efficacious part of practice doesn't call for magic or gods or an afterlife. (Again, if people are in Buddhism only for that part, more power to them, but for secular people, there is still a point to it all even if one is atheist and extinctionalist)
Of all the organized (and unorganized religions), Buddhism is the only religion that isn't reduced to pointlessness if you remove the afterlife and supernatural. You can't do the same trick with Christianity-- if you remove God from Christianity, there is nothing left of interest to any one-- a big stilted book about superstitious events and a cruel system of ethics. If you suspect Buddhism collapses without supernatural Boddhisatvas and a heaven-like nirvana or rebirth, you maybe be imagining that Buddhism is Christianity with the names swapped out, which it isn't.
Well now, the ego of Buddhism (at least as expressed here) that Christianity would collapse with God. No. There is still a widely adopted moral code, particularly as expressed in the New Testament.
Believing in hell realms other than what goes on here may be beneficial to some but it has absolutely no bearing on whether a person has a decent combination of wisdom and compassion. That's a big part of why I am non-sectarian.
I think gods only exist in the minds of those who believe but that on some level they suffer and deserve to be freed. I also believe that the universe itself is undergoing a process of self discovery and that's the closest thing I could conceive as comparable to God/Brahman (Or even the manifestation of Maitreya if nobody will beat me for such blasphemy)
I don't have faith in these things but they make sense to me.
Secular, religious... These are just labels. I don't care which teachings appeal to which because their making sense is more important. I can't believe just because I want to believe.
So I'm RELATING, sincerely, with this statement!! For what it's worth, growing up surrounded by a Christian milieu I felt always like the stomach rumbling outsider left out at the feast. While pastors and youth leaders, friends and even family have put in extreme effort on my behalf -- hell, *I* myself wanted it too -- it is as though the Christian religion spat me back out like an olive pit.
It's not that I couldn't see for the life of me what Jesus dying on the cross 2000 years ago had to do with MY eternal soul, it's that I lack a basic function when it comes to religion: faith based belief. When Jesus said "Blessed is he who doesn't see but believes", well, I am not blessed and never have been.
I discovered Buddhism in my mid twenties; though it can appear to be a faith-based religion (karma and rebirth for example) it is more like an 'approach' to life that proves itself each step of the way. The only 'faith' I ever needed was to take a chance to apply a principle to my life or take a stab at meditation.
CLEARLY, to me anyway, Buddhism coming from Tibet or Thailand or China through Japan is clothed in the trappings of the culture it took root in. Those trappings are adornments to a Teaching, they are not immutable PARTS of the Teaching, but ladders and ropes TO the teaching that sprang up for the individuals of that culture to access the Teachings.
In the West, where there is growing disinterest (lightly put
It's fine to be a Soto Zen westerner, and even though I squint when someone calls themselves Roshi Albert Smith (I don't get it, OK?) 'secular' Buddhism is merely Buddhism without the cultural trappings of OTHER cultures where Buddhism has taken root.
Buddhism becomes faith-based, for me, when I get the impression I have to 'believe' something that I do not or have not experienced. I have not, to my knowledge, experienced rebirth, or visitation by Avalokitashivara though a couple of Tibetan demons are looking a lot like certain individuals from my past.
When I say "I do not or have not experienced" I mean I can't really relate it to my 48 years of experience living on Planet Earth. Buddhist Teachings carefully (and lovingly) dissected from Indian, Tibetan, Sri Lankan/Thailandic and Oriental cultural trappings RESONATES like, well, like big Zen bowls within me
Gassho <------ I just like what that word means, OK????
It's also being able to look at any religion and see the same characteristics in how a religion works, and not get wrapped up in it. Just look for wisdom.
Others see it differently...and that's okay, too...most of the time.
I follow C J Lewis's advice : "Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. " ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma
I think he was a fool and possibly ahistorical.
I've seen a bit of aggression from the secular towards the religious, the religious towards the secular, the veggies towards the meat eaters, the meat eaters towards the veggies, the vegans towards the veggies, the veggies towards the vegans (not so much), the fundamentalists towards the skeptics, the skeptics towards the fundamentalists and some towards individual posters because of how they express whichever view.
On the whole, this is the most realistic Buddhist board I've come across. One that transcends our petty disagreements in perception.
That's funny, I feel somewhat (note, somewhat) the opposite. I think some of our little tifts come when someone expresses a Zen viewpoint versus a Theravada viewpoint (for example), without us knowing which perspective the person is coming from. Sometimes I later find myself thinking, oh I get it now, different school of thought. On the other hand, this tendency has widened my perspective a bit.
In terms of moderation, anyone notice a distinct change lately?
http://middlewayphilosophy.wordpress.com/secular-buddhism/
I couldn't agree with you more @Dakini. Especially when I have been disagreeing on other threads on NB - equanimity prevails ;-)
At the same time I treasure the other opinion of meditation so long as I have time and energy to check up on their sources.
I wonder how many of you noticed that every Buddhist online forum, whether secular, non-secular, or mixed, no matter where it originates, or which 'tradition' of Buddhism is its main focus - is unquestionably dominated by males.
Just a curious point, no?
It's possible that women have more and closer friends to talk to. Men overall are lonelier.
Or maybe men need to grind through things more than women in order to understand.
Or maybe women are less talkers, more doers when it come to Buddhism.
Interesting question... I have no clue about the male-to-female statistics as far as internet use goes. Wonder if we can google it. But then again, we're not limited to just the US (on this or most forums) so I doubt the numbers are accurate everywhere...
Among my friends, I think it's pretty even as far as which gender uses the internet in general. :: shrugs:::
Edited to add. There seems to be no shortage of women /girls using the internet for female related sites, as well as sites like facebook, Pinterest, parenting sites, etc.
I have very limited experience on Christian sites, but what I did see was that they are generally run/maintained/managed by men, but the participants run slightly to the female side. But like I said, I have a very limited experience with that...
The male/female ratio was similar to what we see here.
People seem to segregate by gender on the internet. Women also are more likely to stick to "walled gardens" (such as face book), less likely to show up in anonymous online communities, more likely to participate as "gender neutral", i.e. you can't tell from their name or posts what gender they are.
If some % of potential new Buddhist women kept moving after reading things like the Medicine Buddha's 8th vow, well, I can't blame them.
"12. To help women who wish to be reborn as men achieve their desired rebirth."
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaisajyaguru#The_Twelve_Vows
With none of us knowing the actual numbers for 'here', what would your guestimate be?
I'm guessing it's about 80% male, 20% female. With actual participation being somewhere around 90% - 10%.
In fact, I don't see anything about the 4NT that is particularly religious, any more than most other wisdom is religious.
No mention of 'god', heaven, hell, ghosts, demons, or any "otherworldly" spiritual stuff.