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
Hello,
I previously visited this forum when I was trying to get a better understanding of what Buddhism was, and decided that I wasn't sure what direction I wanted to take. I would generally consider myself to be agnostic (leaning toward atheism) with no religious/spiritual beliefs in particular.
I like many aspects of the teachings of Buddhism, and the focus on self improvement, and I have more recently felt that I would benefit from something of the kind - however I have difficulty coming to terms with some of the more supernatural aspects. Following an internet search I stumbled upon 'Secular Buddhism' which at face value seems quite appealing - I was wondering what the general feeling about it was on the forums.
I previously visited this forum when I was trying to get a better understanding of what Buddhism was, and decided that I wasn't sure what direction I wanted to take. I would generally consider myself to be agnostic (leaning toward atheism) with no religious/spiritual beliefs in particular.
I like many aspects of the teachings of Buddhism, and the focus on self improvement, and I have more recently felt that I would benefit from something of the kind - however I have difficulty coming to terms with some of the more supernatural aspects. Following an internet search I stumbled upon 'Secular Buddhism' which at face value seems quite appealing - I was wondering what the general feeling about it was on the forums.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Keep an open mind, develop a basic practice of meditation, Find a tradition you like, Find a good teacher, Receive some more specific instructions, Develop a more controlled mind.
don't think you HAVE to BELIEVE in becoming(buddhist term for rebirth) or kamma. it is fine to shelf these things for later. In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha even discussed that if there is no "rebirth" then the practice brings great fruit here and now in this life.. and if there is rebirth then you are doubly rewarded. The most important thing is the practice, of sila(morality) and Samadhi( concentration ie meditation/mindfulness).
also there is "Pragmatic" buddhism with is like secular but follows a Zen style meditation tradition. the Buddha Center has two pragmatic buddhist reverands who teach there and I have enjoyed their talks. - http://www.pragmaticbuddhism.org/
If I was able to have a functioning, secular Buddhist practice from which deeper insights arose I would be okay with that.
so whether you call your practice mahayanan, theravadan, secular, or pragmatic.. these are all just conceptual terms we attach to the practice.. it is the practice itself that matters most and through which we will see fruit of our efforts.
also as an aside regarding open mindedness.. as you practice and you observe your mind and how it works.. I have a sneaking suspicion you will grow in your open mindedness.. that is just how it works... you don't have to "will" yourself to be open minded now or feel bad about it.. just proceed with the practice.
that being said, "vowing" (ie using force of will) to live a "more moral life"(ie following the five precepts) does not work.. you have to come to see the validity of following these precepts on your own through your own experience. so yes in essence the more you meditate, the more you see things as they really are, your motivations, tendencies, etc and the more sense it makes to you to abandon unskillful actions and perform skillful ones.
are you familiar with the five precepts at all?
I highly reccommend watching this video -
just know that meditation is a PRACTICE.. meaning that you get better at it the more you do it.. never ever expect to have peace and bliss right off the bat, never expect to be able to sit for more then 5-10 minutes before stopping due to physical or mental issues. learning to let go also means letting go any ego issues regarding our meditation and not expecting anything, to just be there in the moment, objectively observing all phenomenon(from itches, to pain, to sexual fantasies) come and go.
regrets are your mind fixated on the past.. worries are your mind fixated with negativity on the future, the past and future do not exist outside of our own mind. Only the present moment is "reality". The present moment is where we see things clearly and know what the best course of action for us to do is.
But so far, as of today, this moment -- I'm a secular Buddhist.
I try to follow the middle way and the 5 precepts to the best of my ability. As for meditation, I did a whole lot more meditation while I was a pagan than a Buddhist. I'm just not really into meditation at this point. Again, that could change tomorrow, next week, or 5 minutes from now.
If you say that broad Buddhist principles are all verifiable, then I would say yes. I would not, however, say that everything attributed to Buddha in Buddhist scriptures have been verified...and some are just not correct.
Karma is simply action and effect we can see its effects now it is not hard to see but only the wise can actually discern the cause of innumerable experiences, Having cultivated wisdom and insight Buddha saw the Interconnectedness of all phenomena and hidden phenomena such as Rebirth.
An open mind is essential because all Samsaric beings essentially have wrong awareness that cannot currently ascertain the way things are, But with a mind purified by Concentration and wisdom these wrong awarenesses will cease and we can discern the truth of Buddha's deeper teachings for our selves.
If you cannot accept such teachings just put them on the shelf for now because you will find as insights grow so does our understanding of Buddha's teachings.
It is okay to be sceptical but in order for it to be successful one has to be like a scientist and use the tools at ones disposal to enquire about what is true rather then like a fool who dwells in Ignorance.
Be well
You don't need to bring a belief to it. Your practise will show you what ever you need to be face. Good teachers will teach of the truths that they've understood for themselves but great teachers will teach you how to find your own truth.
Following a moral code would be difficult? What??
Check out Humanistic Buddhism, it very popular in the Pureland and Zen traditions in China and Taiwan.
I'm not talking about any specific person here, but too many Buddhists get a thrill out of talking about almost any topic in abstract terms. They like to look, for example, at the 5 Precepts in abstract terms because it gives them more wiggle room to do what they want to do.
I don't see much abstract about the 5 Precepts, although I do feel that their interpretation can be discussed.
Caz, while I'm unsure what you meant in your closing comment on skepticism, your post really helped to clarify things for me, so thank-you.
My somewhat limited understanding of meditation is simply focusing on the breath, looking at what arises in a dispassionate manner, and trying to remain focused. I am unsure of how we gain these 'insights'. Do they come to you during the meditation? Do you have to meditate on a particular topic? Does the mindfulness and concentration cultivated through meditation enable us to realise these things?
I must say humanism, secular, non cultural-circus-Buddhism and geek Buddhism are my favourite.
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/
Mind you I am on a path to Buddhahood by next Christmas, so obviously have to go for only the essentials . . . :om:
Yesterday I had an excited phone call from a young person who had a strange experience while going to sleep. Two hours of dipping in and out of a state where all thoughts ceased or became like little minnows swimming in an ocean of silence, a cessation of physical sensations and a deep sense of peace and bliss. I congratulated him heartily. He's not even a pretend Buddhist.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.html
Its relation to the other factors of the path
"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong action as wrong action, and right action as right action. This is one's right view. And what is wrong action? Killing, taking what is not given, illicit sex. This is wrong action...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right action."
— MN 117
so if a person doesn't have right view regarding this issue.. then it may not "make sense" to act in skillful ways.
also since I'm at it.. from the same link - a lay persons skillfulness -
A layperson's skillfulness
"And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his rod laid down, his knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action."
http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/09/what-is-a-secular-buddhist-and-what-do-they-believe/
here's SOME of what you'll see at that site:
" what secular Buddhists are not:
** In spite of what’s being bandied about the ‘net, secular Buddhists are not Stephen Batchelor clones. Not all secular Buddhists know about Stephen Batchelor, and while many do, not all are in 100% agreement with him on every aspect of Buddhism. And while many of us like him immensely, he is not our god, he is not our Buddha, and we do not aspire to be Stephen’s twin.
** We do not all approach practice the same way, nor do we all view the suttas in the same light, and many of us don’t even agree on Gotama himself (more on this in beliefs below).
** Secular Buddhists do not feel the need to erase the colorful rich, history of Buddhism, nor do we want to destroy traditions, their practices, their rituals, or their beliefs. Most secular Buddhists do not consider traditional Buddhism as “wrong” and secular Buddhism as “right”.
What secular Buddhist DO believe:
(edited to just a few points out of many):
Some secular Buddhists believe Buddha was a historical figure and his authenticity is of importance to their practice.
Some secular Buddhists have never thought about whether Gotama is a historical person or a myth, and some don’t care either way.
Some secular Buddhists believe in rebirth or reincarnation, while many do not.
Some secular Buddhists believe one can reach a fixed state of enlightenment and end suffering completely, while others do not.
Some secular Buddhists view enlightenment as moments of being awake, mindful in the present without mental embellishments and the suffering that creates.
and a little more:
Many secular Buddhists approach Buddhism from a practice point of view only.
Many secular Buddhists are not dogmatic about the suttas but have great respect for the teachings.
Many secular Buddhists consider the most relevant teachings to be the four noble truths, the eightfold path, and the ethics and compassion that comes out of both of those. However, there is much variation on how they define these teachings and put them into practice. In fact, we have a lot of healthy discussion and disagreement on these topics with each other.
Many secular Buddhist approach the sutta translations enthusiastically, skillfully, and skeptically. There is also much disagreement and agreement over the suttas.
Many secular Buddhists don’t care at all about the suttas, Buddhist history, or even Buddha. What they want is the practice itself; they want to know what to do.
But, what good is an "iffy" moral code?
https://www.upaya.org/uploads/pdfs/batchelor12.pdf
And thanks to Mary Ann for the post about secular Buddhism. I wasn't quite sure what it is, and now it turns out that perhaps I am one.
@Meh - this is the first I've come across "Secular Buddhism", and quite surprised, essentially, it seems to be a take on the Dharma devoid of the more unquantifiable, the undefinable, and any sense of the transcendental, is that right? Its an interesting debate because I know of several order members in the Triratna tradition who dont believe in rebirth (Karma, in the sense of willed volitions, I dont think needs to be a matter of faith anymore that I have faith that if I turn up the thermostat the room with slowly heat up, etc). Some people argue that the Buddha himself did not believe in rebirth, but used it as a metaphor to help people understand his Dharma as it was the commonly held view of the day. Some people have suggested that he meant rebirth in the sense of every day we are reborn. We'll never know either way.
Interestingly, one does have to understand that Rebirth is NOT Reincarnation. The traditional misunderstanding is that there is an identifiable person who somehow magically reappears after death again and again life after life etc is completely at odds with the teachings of Atman or Annatta, which show that there is no FIXED self to start off with, much less one there to be reborn.
If we can accept that consciousness is a phenomenon that does indeed exist, then it has to fit into one of the 6 elements (Earth, air, water, fire, space and consciousness). At death, all the other elements that constitute our bodies and mental processes are given back to the universe as the body cools, shrinks, decays, disappearing entirely eventually. Science illustrated that in any reaction, energy and matter are not destroyed but transmute and often change states. Perhaps this is what happens with consciousness at the point of death?
As different traditions have different takes on the matter, I personally would unhesitatingly recommend the British teacher/thinker/author Sangharakshita, as many of his talks are a) as the result of 70 years practice and b) he is easily one of the most broadly educated/trained Buddhist teacher who has ever lived. All other masters became masters in their tradition and no others. Sangharakshita has never claimed to be a Master or an enlightened being, but he is the only teacher alive (that I know of) who has gone through the training and taken the ordination vows within all the THREE Yanas (or schools/traditions) of Theravada (Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand) Mahayana (China/Japan) and Vajryana (Tibetan/Nepalese Buddhism)!
Here is a link to an astoundingly good talk by the man himself on Karma and Rebirth:
freebuddhistaudio.com/audio/details?num=32
It might be a bit heavy in places, and does go into some Abhidharma-like analysis, but easy to follow and provides newcomers with a chance to look into the TRADITIONAL views of Death and Rebirth. I don't believe you HAVE to believe in rebirth (whatever it may or may not be) to be a Buddhist, PROVIDING you accept that enlightenment is attainable in this single life we have. Then you really do have to go for it! lol! Perhaps just listen to the conclusion, lol!
Me, Im gonna be an unenlightened being for the next million or so lifetimes, but it doesnt mean I should get too complacent. I do wonder thought, those moments when it feels like "coming home" to Buddhism, those moments where you think "aha, THIS is who I am" can feel very much at times like a re-learning of something one used to know intuitively... But thats probably just the romantic in me ;-)
Happy exploring guys, and may you all enjoy this day in peace and metta...
xx
I would agree, they do (in a way) 'reject' traditional Buddhism - as their own personal path. But that is not declaring either one - secular or traditional - as right or wrong. Merely preferring one over the other as a personal choice.
Well, I'm not a Christian. I used to be, many many moons ago, but I am no longer.
Do I think those who follow the Christian path are "wrong" in any way? No. It's just not the path that strikes a chord in me.
There is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to choosing a spiritual or philosophical path; only what appeals and 'fits' better than others.
Choosing one philosophy, one religion, one car, or one flavor of ice cream over others doesn't make anything "wrong" with the others... just not my choice.
By the way- anyone else not getting the text editing bar above when they are typing up a post? Anyone else not able to click on the "LOL" buttons, etc at the bottom of posts already up? I'm getting a Java Script error when I do.
I prefer to think of myself as an objective Buddhist. I won't outright reject any teaching unless it contradicts scientific discovery.
I consider myself spiritual with my Buddhism; about half way between traditional and secular. I do believe in a form of rebirth ( I think there is evidence for such a thing), but that's about it when it comes to the "supernatural" aspects. I don't believe in the higher/lower realms or literal karma, but that's perfectly fine. No one is going to force me to believe in them...at least I hope not.
To be honest, as long as one adheres to the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, then one is a Buddhist. And that's all that is needed.
With the understanding we are then more open to things in daily life - for example you may think of buying an expensive car, but realize that your motivation for it comes solely from unmet expectations from a person you don't even like. So you reconsider, and maybe invest in something more meaningful to you. You start to understand that just because you feel a certain emotion it doesn't necessitate a certain response; so you become more free by the understanding. That is the insight of it.
There are many other forms of meditation if you read around a bit. They are used for different things. You know your motivation, so its you who has to find a meditation that fits what you wanna do or know, or answers your questions in life. Well, its not like you are gonna steal and the Buddha is gonna jump outta nowhere and beat you up for it. He's been dead for thousands of years. The idea behind precepts is that those actions breed trouble, and are usually done with a fishy agenda - out of fear, hate, etc. Also, they are self-perpetuating. The more you steal, the more you rationalize it, the more you see the world as not providing what you need, the greater the possibility of stealing to get what you need again. And the greater trouble coming out of it as a consequence. But you need to see it for yourself, adhering to random moral codes is useless, you would only feel forced into it. If you follow them, it is not like the Buddha is gonna jump outta nowhere with a bouquet of flowers to thank you as well
Meh - It seems to me that the Buddha's teachings on morality do not inlude an absolute moral code, if by that we mean some kind of cosmic rule book. The morality of our behaviour would be judged according to our knowledge and intentions. As we are the only people who know these we must be our own judge. But there would be no judging. A Sufi saying has it that 'to make a man a judge is to kill him without a knife'. There is just the laws of karma at work. As we sow, so shall we reap, and this would be the absolute rule, no more involving judgements than the path of a rock falling off a cliff. The actual effect of our 'immoral' actions is not the point, and could never be the point, since those effects will reverberate down through time and may even do some net good in the long run. But we cannot be punished or rewarded for effects we did not forsee. Ignorance is the real enemy, for this is what allows us to do stupid things like acting immorally.
About insights. I would suggest that the insights and knowledge that may be gained in meditation cannot be underestimated. It would be impossible.