[Bookclub] Did the Buddha Intend To Teach Agnosticism, and a Secular Practice?

Dakini

Batchelor seems to disparage the religiosity that has evolved in relation to Buddhism. (Revering Buddha as a god or demi-god, displaying icon-like art in temples, the existence of temples themselves, uncritical acceptance of the Buddha's teachings after his death) He claims the Buddha did his best to avoid that, and to establish a method for eliminating suffering that was agnostic in nature.

"When asked about metaphysics, (the origin and end of the universe, the difference between body and mind, his existence or nonexistence after death) he remained silent. He made no claims to ...divinity. ... He described himself as an openhanded teacher without an esoteric doctrine reserved for an elite. Before he died he refused to appoint a successor, remarking that people should be responsible for their own freedom. Dharma practice would suffice as their guide."
"Historically, Buddhism has tended to lose its agnostic dimension through becoming institutionalized as a religion (i.e. revealed belief system valid for all time, controlled by an elite body of priests)."

Is Batchelor right in his perception of Buddhism as having morphed into a religion, from what he thinks was intended as an agnostic or secular practice? Is a secular practice in fact what the Buddha intended, or can we even begin to guess what the Buddha intended?

[Mod Edit: "Bookclub" tag added.]

taiyaki

when bodhidharma arrived in china he saw that buddhism became a religion of ritual and scholarly study.

then he went ape shit. then he stared at a wall for years on end.

then zen was born but even zen has the same problem.

thus the cycle goes on and on. lol

BuckyG

when bodhidharma...saw...buddhism became a religion of ritual and scholarly study...he went ape shit. then he stared at a wall for years on end.... then zen was born...lol

hahahaha!:zombie:

Dakini

Bucky, I can't tell if you're laughing, or crying--or both!
Thanks for the historical perspective, Tai.

Cloud

It seems very clear that the Buddha had to strive against his doctrine & discipline becoming like a religion during his time. He was constantly being asked this or that metaphysical question and being asked to solidify definitions of what we are, what Nirvana is, how karma and rebirth work, and so on. Since his time, we've more or less determined what we want those answers to be and have formalized them, but they're not based on what he said but rather our own conclusions (as unenlightened as they are).

More than anything I think the Buddha wanted us to stop getting tangled up in our opinions, in our speculations, and to dedicate our effort to seeing what is really here that can be directly experienced and known to every mind. So if agnosticism means withholding judgment without knowing, then yes I believe the Buddha taught in this fashion.

Dakini

Batchelor says, if I remember correctly, that the metaphysical questions can be answered by science, and the Buddha was intent simply on teaching the end of suffering.

Ric

I think the Buddha's path is a hard one to take. It takes hard work, dedication and constant vigilance. I think that the lazy side of people's mind create a deity out of Buddha because if he is not considered superhuman then the responsibility falls on themselves to work just as hard.

It is the typical path of least resistance. Instead of choosing hard work some people choose to say "Well I could never do that, after all the Buddha wasnt an ordinary human being" and in this way excuse themselves from putting in the hard work. Its a lot easier to bow down and pray than actually following his path 24/7.

If you boil it deep down it just as typical as all the other numerous obstacles we create to justify our laziness.

So I agree that Buddhism morphed into a religion and the reason I think so is the path of least resistance we always (especially as a society) choose.

bravehawk

I think Buddha intended his thoughts to be more of a theology to adopt into what a person already believed in. Yea, he had disciples, but he needed someone to spread his word and help teach it in the right light. I don't think he intended to be worshiped, but respected like a teacher. I mean, if my algebra taught me how to do math better than before, I would respect him, but not worship him. I think it's along the manner. respect shouldn't equal worship, and vice versa.

BuckyG

Bucky, I can't tell if you're laughing, or crying--or both!

just zombie decaying

BuckyG

I think this is an excellent point (the only thing I'd change is the phrase "every mind" to "individual minds").

More than anything I think the Buddha wanted us to stop getting tangled up in our opinions, in our speculations, and to dedicate our effort to seeing what is really here that can be directly experienced and known to every mind. So if agnosticism means withholding judgment without knowing, then yes I believe the Buddha taught in this fashion.

Cloud

Same thing. The intended meaning would be "every individual mind", so combining both.

BuckyG

Thanks cloud. That's exactly what I WANTED to say, but couldn't think of.

Jeffrey

I don't think that any tradition worships buddha literaly. Most pay reverance to him. Which can be a tool to open up to the teachings. I think all of buddhas teachings you need to gauge if they are helping you with your practice. And that may change over time.

Sorry I have been away for awhile. I was drawn to other things.

But with the need to customize in mind even buddhas statement that he gave everything with an outstretched hand needs to be taken as a hint rather than as a rule set in stone. His comment may have been provisional guidance rather than sort of a promise as Jesus made promises to his disciples for what they would receive in heaven. In any case each person in my opinion needs to find something that works for them. It is not true in my opinion that you are doing something 'wrong' if you contradict something in a canon.

BuckyG

I think all of buddhas teachings you need to gauge if they are helping you with your practice.

What would such a gauge look like?

Cloud

The alleviation of suffering, I'd say. If you become more calm, more still of mind, during your everyday activities... that's one of the results of practice. It's the gauge I use, anyway. That and clarity, but who can tell you if you have clarity other than a teacher?

BuckyG

That and clarity, but who can tell you if you have clarity other than a teacher?

If you have clarity, you don't need ANYONE to verify it, or do I misunderstand what you mean by clarity?
metta

Cloud

I think it depends. You know what you know, but you don't know how clear that is in comparison with "complete" clarity. You can do research and try to find out, but really a teacher questioning you to see your state of mind is the best bet.

Jeffrey

"What would such a gauge look like?" The teaching I have heard is that the nature of mind is to be clear luminous and unimpeded. Or clear sensitive and open. The clarity is the nature of awareness how things are distinct in appearing to us. Even confusion has a distinct vivid clarity if we turn towards it.

For this reason if we turn towards any experience. If we open to it the clarity increases. The sensitivity also increases and this can be frightening response to having nothing to grasp at which might make us want to shut down. But if we instead trust ourselves and our experience we will be able to open.

BuckyG

yes, self is the truest refuge