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.
What does it mean to be a "secular religionist" to you?
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
Whether it be a secular Buddhist, or any other religion?
0
Comments
Secular Buddhism seems to be Naturalistic Buddhism, focusing on what's knowable about this life and putting speculation/claims to the side as unsubstantiated and quite possibly unknowable (i.e. literal rebirth (multiple lifetime), other literal realms of existence, beings such as hungry ghosts and devas, etc.). That may not be everyone else's understanding, not even on the forum where Secular Buddhists congregate.
I can comprehend Buddhism being open to this view, though I can't imagine how it would work with faith-based religions. For instance the idea of "Secular Christianity" wouldn't make any sense to me, at least not if it still accepted creation, miracles and divinity. Buddhism is about suffering and its cessation, and is easily recognizable as still being Buddhism (the Four Noble Truths are the essence) even when supernatural elements are "revised" in a naturalistic context.
What I think of when I hear secular is someone or something that is unpreferential towards any religious dogma. I think it means taking an open and honest approach towards beliefs.
I suppose in practice secularists seem to generally deny or at least are agnostic towards mystical claims and focus on the practical aspects of a religion.
How about you?
To me it is more about being an individualist. Not believing that whatever the religion that you have to buy it all lock, stock, and barrel.
I view it all through the lens of skepticism; it's my equalizer so I don't feel like I'm picking and choosing things I want to hear, or discounting things that I don't. People might think I'm cherry-picking, but what I'm attempting is more like truth-picking... Buddhism is just caught up in that search/process.
It's all about exactly two things to me: truth (always important to me), and the cessation of suffering (for myself and others). For the longest time my priority was on truth, and I didn't know about Buddhism or enlightenment. Now they are both important and mutually reinforcing.
From a secular Buddhism website, the term 'secular' is from 'saeculum', a latin word designating a period of time, roughly 90 years or so; the time between the beginning of something until all those who were alive at the beginning have passed away.
Secular as a term is related to 'modernity', a constantly forward shifting frame of time roughly equivalent to a human life time.
Since reading that, when I hear read or think 'secular' it brings up impressions about TIME, like, this time, right now, this 'day and age'.
But I see the term secular used as a description of opposition between religiousness and secularity. Not sure if that's a word, but :buck: it sounds like one. Anyway, how the term 'secular' is USED is not consistent with it's original meaning.
Here's the wikipedia page fwiw: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum
Defining ourselves by our relationship to the Truth, when she comes visit, is impossible.
However in the meanwhile being a secular religionist, someone who knows what they know is applicable to any cushion squashing Buddhist or seeker after Cod or his noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
So I would say secular religionist is a modern form of gnosis. Knowing what we can know, not believing what we are told by dogma and bones . . .
Now back to the sauce . . .
A secular religionist to me, is not accepting wild claims without some kind of evidence or intuitive gut feelings. Discernment in action.
I am skeptical of extra- ordinary claims but won't dismiss them off hand. I have my own intuitive gut feelings that would make many secular Buddhists shudder.
"Secular religionist" is an oxymoron because "secular" means "non-religious".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron
If we're going to use labels can we please use them correctly?
You may, if you like. I like language when it's flexible and works as people need it. With a little background in linguistics, there's a balance between being too formal or too lax with language.
It depends on the context, but when language is being used to express sometimes complex ideas, like on a Buddhist discussion forum, laxity can be a real problem.
Laxity can also reflect a basic lack of clarity, people haven't really worked out where they stand, or what they believe, so they label themselves incorrectly and misleadingly.
Actually I think labels are often more trouble than they're worth.
Labeling is one of the most basic traits of mankind, and it is actually a rather logical way to comprehend the state of being.
First we should debate whether Buddhism can be considered a religion or not.
If you strip Buddhism down to its basic template, that is 4NT, N8P and three marks of existence, it resembles more a psychological self-help method than a religion.
That's precisely what attracted me towards Buddhism and away from the Catholic religion in the first place: what strikes me as the Buddha's pragmatic approach and seemingly disinterest in the metaphysical debate.
And though life always has me gravitating around Tibetan circles with all its religious trappings, I tend to be a secular at heart.
That is, I shun all metaphysical speculations and concentrate myself in the cessation of Affliction in the present moment.
So, in my case, I'm more of a secular Buddhist and reluctant religionist (I have this soft spot for Tibetan Buddhism...)
Edit: forgot to add that I am an avid sutta reader, despite the fact that many of them have a strong religious overtone...
Labelling ourselves I believe created the mess we are in.
Labelling is useful but also a problem.
He or she is a terrorist, secularist, Muslim, Christian, black, white...
It creates a ghost of reality. If you want to fight a war against an enemy. Label them as something other than human.
I think labelling is the worst way to comprehend a state of being. Rather just see and not attach names to anything.
Eg. That is a flower. Creates the illusion that there is a thing that has a separate existence. In reality there is no flower, just a conglomeration matter. We don't see connectedness because we label.
It much depends on which school(s) of Buddhism we're talking about.
Quite right.
It also depends on what individual you talk to. Around here anyway.
We, on this board, can't even come up with consensus on how to define concepts like what defines "Buddhist". Is Buddhism a religion, or not? Forget it.
It isn't at all logical when everyone wants to make up their own definition of the labels, it's just confusing.
Interesting...and nicely written!
Yes, many Buddhists love that way of abstract thinking. It's so cool.
But do you think being an individualist is a positive thing, or conducive to Buddhist practice? I don't. Quite the opposite.
Yes, it seems like a fruitless discussion when everyone wants their own personal version of Buddhism.
The opposite would be conformity which is a denial of each of our unique perspectives and abilities.
Where would we be if Sidhartha decided to ignore his individuality? He would never have found the path.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Okay, so you like the herd mentality, and I prefer being an individualist. To each his own. But I would remind you that Buddha discovered his wisdom while rejecting the herd mentality and going out as an individual.
Yes and no, but at completely different levels!
Individualism and 'uniqueness' appear to be a dead-end road, to me. You can go so far and you end up nowhere, without even the ability to navigate.
"My Own Buddhism" would be an exercise in solipsism. Strict adherence to an ideology (including the thought processes that support strict adherence) leads to fundamentalism, another way of missing the point.
I'm still trying to figure this out myself. The prescription of Buddhism ought not to be manipulated by ME, the individual -- yet it MUST be experienced directly by me.
Those are the two levels, if that makes any sense :buck: . The experiential level is by necessity entirely individual -- but the cognitive and behavioral 'level' ought to avoid being manipulated in service to the uniqueness of a self (whichever one happens to have the floor).
It's not abstract thinking, it's seeing the plain obvious. Most people don't see it. That's cool to. It's the human condition. Hence why we suffer.
Groovy.
Yes. The same could be said about Jim Jones and a few other religious 'leaders' of the same ilk.
What do you think the difference is? Sincere question
I am genuinely wondering.
I haven't the slightest idea, at this point, on how to approach your question.
In fact, it has the feel of a "trick question".
Effect.
Bad effect.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
and good effects I trust, by practicing the Shakyamuni cult teachings . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
:wave: .
Yes, that's what I was getting at. Individualism is useful up to a point, but beyond a certain point it can become a hindrance - for example if we're unable to put aside our ego long enough to really listen to what a teaching is saying.
And of course traditionally skeptical doubt is one of the five hindrances, which suggests that an over-skeptical attitude is going to be counter-productive.
It's like the Zen thing about beginners mind - if we're stuffed full of beliefs, opinions and views then there's little room for anything new.
I am not really familiar with Jim Jones. Is his system of belief fairly logical or does it depend on the idea that the messenger talks to gods?
Well, in the end, we'll all get stuck with some sort of personal, subjective version of everything in life, since our ability to perceive and make sense of reality is limited by our individual biases and intelligence.
>
Well, there would appear to be a distinct definition regarding those already enmeshed within a religious existence. Secular doesn't actually mean 'non-religious' exactly:
so I would say that being a Secular Religionist may well be someone who follows a calling devotedly, but fairly well on their own, like Hermits, St Francis of Assisi, and yes, even, initially, the Buddha himself, as the Mendicant he had been predicted to be.
I would say I am a secular religionist. I attend no temple and have no teacher. I'm pretty much hitherto self-taught, but (and this is in no way intended as a comparison with others, or a self-aggrandising statement) I personally consider myself to be pretty devout and serious in my following of Buddhism.
"Spiritual secularist" might make more sense.
And yes, secular does mean non-religious.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular
But why don't you forget all that and just call yourself a Buddhist.
From what I can tell it is putting stock in worldly matters over spiritual ones but that doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
What exactly is the difference?
It seems to be a matter of drawing your personal line in the sand but some of us have no such line to cross.
I think I will be a "circular" Buddhist from now on.
I had a feeling it might come out sounding that way . . . that's why I said 'genuine question', in hopes that I could make myself more clear
.
Jim Jones
I'll let the wikipedia article 'answer' your question. My point in using him was my off-the-hip assessment that Jones was an example of 'individuality' run amok (not to mentioned identified with the Godhead).
Buddha stepped away from 'the herd' and pursued his Awakening alone.
How the Buddha ended up where he did, rather than in a more common Jim Jones cult guru, is the crux of my question. My point is that simply NOT following the herd doesn't mean you are on the 'right track', nor does pursuing a completely individualistic approach mean you are 'on the right track'.
I wasn't implying it did, I was only saying that conformity is the opposite of individuality and Buddha didn't teach conformity. He taught according to the needs of the students.
He did teach the three jewels of refuge which includes Sangha. THat can be translated into commuunity and to belong to such a community presupposes a degree of conformity. You can't belong to a community of any sort without conformity at some level.
In more elementary times, a non-conformist would be ostracised, and this would lead to his/her death from exposure, starvation or any number of reasons. In those days you literally couldn't survive outside of community. It was that important.
The Buddha didn't simply take off on his own. He embarked on a journey not at all uncommon in the culture of that region, for those seeking Truth. He engaged in study and practice with recognized masters of the time. He associated with like-minded practitioners. Eventually did go off on his own, but only briefly, because when he returned from his practice he did so for the benefit of beings. He didn't do it "his way" he did it in the way that would benefit the beings he saw suffering. And he founded the Sangha, the community of practitioners, as a jewel of refuge.
An individualist would have simply gone off on his own and stayed there.
I wasn't thinking you were, this question I'm NOT doing a very good job of asking goes back to a statement Vinlyn made.
Clearly, we humans demonstrate an ability to directly relate to the Divine (whatEVER anyone wants to call it). Some demonstrate more of a talent than others, while some could care less. But for the ones who seek to 'know' the Divine, we have Gautama the Buddha, on one hand and we have people like Jim Jones and Adi Da and whatever come and gone cult guru who go in a completely destructive direction -- where did they go wrong, or WHAT went wrong? Why didn't Jim Jones end up with a prescription for the end of suffering? Why did he end up with what amounts to it's opposite?
I suspect where the Buddha and the likes of Jim Jones parted ways was that Jones et al mistook their ego for the 'self' of awakening, mistook their ego or small self or whatever it is for that very real experience of the Divine.
Jim Jones is why it it's unlikely this modern society would ever acknowledge the enlightenment of anyone. The danger is that great -- we have been THAT fooled! History abounds with the atrocities of charismatic people, as well as a handful of truly elevated and inspiring people including the Buddha.
That is part of the equation, the other is the complicity of the ignorant, who wish to believe they are following a near God, rather than a fishy near COD.
The integrity and sanity of a leader must be matched by a similar capacity in the community. People follow deluded fools, well meaning loons or opportunistic charlatans because this resonates with their greed for knowledge, being part of a special group or teaching and other lesser tendencies.
As students of dharma it is our responsibility to develop discernment as quickly and efficiently as possible.
:wave: .
You are right of course, however I am not one to advocate one extreme over the other.
Absolute conformity is impossible and the individual can only go so far.
I honestly think it's because Buddha saw how mundane divinity really is and stuck to the practical.
His message can stand on its own and doesn't depend on our taking anybody word for anything. In the end we must use our own individual bullspit detector.
Okay, Hamsaka, now I see where you are coming from in your question.
I agree, not following the herd doesn't mean you are on the right track. But it is equally true that following the herd does not mean you are on the right track.
It's sort of like we are playing cards here. You bet a Jim Jones individualistic mentality (although, that may have begun out of individualism, but then it spread to herd mentality). Okay, I raise you the Inquisition and the Third Reich, as examples of herd mentality. And we could go on forever giving examples of both mentalities being right and wrong. Stalemate.
Here's something I consider to be a truth: Either every religion has "it" wrong except one, or all religions have "it" wrong. And the problem is that every religious group (herd) thinks they are the ones who have it right. They're all operating in the herd mentality.
SpinyNorman asked me a very good question in the thread that was closed. It was after I had commented that, “I don't believe an individual can prove it [rebirth] either way. Although an individual can fool himself that he has.” And he asked, “And would you say the same thing about belief in God?” Yes, I believe the same thing about God – that no individual can prove or disprove his existence. That doesn't prevent SN from believing in rebirth, or me not believing in rebirth.
Chaz made an excellent statement in the same thread: “I think I have sufficient proof for my personal needs”. Exactly. Each of us has a “level of acceptable proof” that works for our own personal needs, but may not work for another individual’s personal needs at all. I believe that overall, evolution is fact. But there are enough things that we don’t understand about evolution, and enough places where we have been wrong about it in the past, that I can understand how another person can not believe in evolution, although that is not the same thing as a person who will never accept evolution no matter what degree of proof there is; same with climate change.
Both excellent points. Also the bit about rebirth/God, but too long to copy.
The first point is why I take each claim independently, instead of lumping everything together as true or false (there's wisdom to be found everywhere, but also ignorance). So even Buddhism can get things wrong and still be acceptable overall.
The second... well, I'm sure I've shown by now that my personal level of "acceptable proof" is pretty high (and unfortunately I think the majority of people have precariously low standards). I've yet to encounter anyone quite like me in that, but you come close @vinlyn.
Yes, I believe the same thing about God – that no individual can prove or disprove his existence. That doesn't prevent SN from believing in rebirth, or me not believing in rebirth.
Just to clarify, I don't believe in rebirth, though I am less skeptical about the idea than God. My debates on rebirth are invariably around sutta interpretation rather than belief.
Buddhism, at least in the west, seems less prone to herding than some of the other religions.
Okay.
So even Buddhism can get things wrong and still be acceptable overall.
But Buddhism isn't a homogeneous whole, there are many schools with different assumptions and approaches. I assume there isn't much you disagree with in secular Buddhism?