Secular Buddhism

Florian

Oh dear. I meant 'over-estimated' in that last sentence. What a clanger. Still, perhaps it's both in a way.

relay

some excerpts ~

Kalama Sutta:

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them..."

Gotami Sutta:

...Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute."

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

DairyLama

Citta said:

Florian said:

Yes. Luckily scientific materialism is not a scientific discovery but a conjectural metaphysical opinion. If Buddhist doctrine is true then it could never contradict scientific discovery, and scientific discovery seems to be coming ever closer to proving its truth.

Which in essence is what the Dalai Lama said..if a point of Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by science then one option is to change the doctrine.

I think most Buddhists would re-assess doctrine if clear evidence emerged against teachings like rebirth and the realms. But don't secular Buddhists reject this stuff anyway, regarding it as "supernatural"?

Citta

PedanticPorpoise said:

Citta said:

Florian said:

Yes. Luckily scientific materialism is not a scientific discovery but a conjectural metaphysical opinion. If Buddhist doctrine is true then it could never contradict scientific discovery, and scientific discovery seems to be coming ever closer to proving its truth.

Which in essence is what the Dalai Lama said..if a point of Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by science then one option is to change the doctrine.

I think most Buddhists would re-assess doctrine if clear evidence emerged against teachings like rebirth and the realms. But don't secular Buddhists reject this stuff anyway, regarding it as "supernatural"?

I dont know...do they ? I am still unclear what a "secular Buddhist" looks like..from where I stand it looks to me as though there is a spectrum of belief.

DairyLama

Citta said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Citta said:

Florian said:

Yes. Luckily scientific materialism is not a scientific discovery but a conjectural metaphysical opinion. If Buddhist doctrine is true then it could never contradict scientific discovery, and scientific discovery seems to be coming ever closer to proving its truth.

Which in essence is what the Dalai Lama said..if a point of Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by science then one option is to change the doctrine.

I think most Buddhists would re-assess doctrine if clear evidence emerged against teachings like rebirth and the realms. But don't secular Buddhists reject this stuff anyway, regarding it as "supernatural"?

I dont know...do they ? I am still unclear what a "secular Buddhist" looks like..from where I stand it looks to me as though there is a spectrum of belief.

Yes, it does all seem a bit vague.

Florian

Telling me. I'm not even sure what use is the phrase 'secular Buddhist'.

DairyLama

Florian said:

Telling me. I'm not even sure what use is the phrase 'secular Buddhist'.

People do identify with this approach and there is a movement of sorts developing around people like the Batchelors - so secular Buddhism seems to be more than just a loose assocation of people who don't like the traditional approach. It's probably early days to think of it as a new school of Buddhism, but I think that will come.

MaryAnne

PedanticPorpoise said:

Florian said:

Telling me. I'm not even sure what use is the phrase 'secular Buddhist'.

People do identify with this approach and there is a movement of sorts developing around people like the Batchelors - so secular Buddhism seems to be more than just a loose assocation of people who don't like the traditional approach. It's probably early days to think of it as a new school of Buddhism, but I think that will come.

@PedanticPorpoise

So, do you believe that 'secular Buddhists' are .... wrong? I get the distinct impression you somehow disapprove of this secular "movement" as you call it. I wonder, why?

And just as a matter of conversation, I, personally, had never heard of Stephen Batchelor before I read his name here in this forum. I haven't to this day read anything he's written or watched any videos of his. At least not that I remember. And if I don't remember, then obviously he didn't make much of an impression.

Citta

I used to live very near the community founded by Stephen and Martine Batchelor in Devon UK..they have now moved to France..what I can tell you is that they spend a good deal of time on the meditation cushion, They actual practice , far more than me for example.
But then I spend time on a Buddhist online forum, and they dont.

vinlyn

Citta said:

I think most Buddhists would re-assess doctrine if clear evidence emerged against teachings like rebirth and the realms. But don't secular Buddhists reject this stuff anyway, regarding it as "supernatural"?

I dont know...do they ? I am still unclear what a "secular Buddhist" looks like..from where I stand it looks to me as though there is a spectrum of belief.


I didn't really understand that I was more of a secular Buddhist until coming to this forum, but I guess that's the end of the spectrum where I feel more comfortable. But, I agree, Citta, it is a spectrum. And I think people make a mistake...or at least oversimplify things...when they put a definitive label on something that has that characteristic of being a spectrum. Frankly, it shows a tendency toward closed-mindedness.

In terms of rebirth and realms, I remain unconvinced, but if evidence eventually goes that way, then I'll accept it.

MaryAnne

Citta said:

I used to live very near the community founded by Stephen and Martine Batchelor in Devon UK..they have now moved to France..what I can tell you is that they spend a good deal of time on the meditation cushion, They actual practice , far more than me for example.
But then I spend time on a Buddhist online forum, and they dont.

And here I was assuming he/they were American. Shows how little I know about the Batchelors. Anyway, glad to hear that they pretty much walk the walk as far as practicing Buddhism, whichever (traditional or secular) they prefer.

I wonder why Stephen Batchelor raises so many people's hackles.... can anyone explain that?

Nevermind

MaryAnne said:

I wonder why Stephen Batchelor raises so many people's hackles.... can anyone explain that?

Most apparently it must be because he challenges their beliefs, which must be on shaky ground to be so easily hackled.

Think about it, if someone declared that grass was purple in color and not green we wouldn't argue with them, we'd simply suggest they visit an ophthalmology. This is because we KNOW that grass is green. If we weren't sure about the color of grass then we might get bent up about it.

Jeffrey

@MaryAnne, he doesn't really raise my hackles, but I don't like how he makes sweeping generalizations and fails to back some of his assertions with evidence. At least that's what I got coming from reading one of his books. I don't remember any specifics.

Citta

Citta said:

I used to live very near the community founded by
Stephen and Martine Batchelor in Devon UK..they have now moved to France..what I can tell you is that they spend a good deal of time on the meditation cushion, They actual practice , far more than me for example.
But then I spend time on a Buddhist online forum, and they dont.

Sometimes when I read through my own posts I realise that my subconscious is telling me something..lol.
In this case its to stop babbling and take a break from N.B.
I'll see youse guys sometime.

Nevermind

Not if we see you first.

BhikkhuJayasara

all should watch this video with a "debate" between the awesome Ajahn Sujato and Mr. Batchelor.



I don't seem to have any issues with Mr. Batchelor, at least in this video he seems very respectful and not trying to downplay or mock "traditional" Buddhism at all. He also appears to be well versed in the suttas.

DairyLama

MaryAnne said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Florian said:

Telling me. I'm not even sure what use is the phrase 'secular Buddhist'.

People do identify with this approach and there is a movement of sorts developing around people like the Batchelors - so secular Buddhism seems to be more than just a loose assocation of people who don't like the traditional approach. It's probably early days to think of it as a new school of Buddhism, but I think that will come.

@PedanticPorpoise

So, do you believe that 'secular Buddhists' are .... wrong? I get the distinct impression you somehow disapprove of this secular "movement" as you call it. I wonder, why?

No, I think the emergence of secular Buddhism is a good thing, partly because it probably means more people are doing Buddhist practice than might otherwise be the case. I've read Stephen Batchelors books and find his approach very interesting, so maybe I'm a closet secularist myself.

Clearly there is an ongoing debate between traditionalists and revisionists, but that isn't peculiar to Buddhism. Actually I can see both sides, but as should now be clear I am skeptical about skepticism.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

And I think people make a mistake...or at least oversimplify things...when they put a definitive label on something that has that characteristic of being a spectrum. Frankly, it shows a tendency toward closed-mindedness.

Obviously there's a spectrum, but if people label themselves as a certain type of Buddhist then assumptions will be made. And secular Buddhism is commonly associated with Stephen Batchelors ideas.

vinlyn

^^ The problem with that thinking is that one may be a secular Buddhist (my leanings), but have never heard of or read Batchelor. I have one of his books...I hope to get around to it shortly.

BhikkhuJayasara

vinlyn said:

^^ The problem with that thinking is that one may be a secular Buddhist (my leanings), but have never heard of or read Batchelor. I have one of his books...I hope to get around to it shortly.

Vinlyn check out the link I posted above with his discussion with Ajahn Sujato.

vinlyn

The point I am making is that to assume secular Buddhists are following Batchelor is a faulty premise. I am pretty much a secular Buddhist, but I came to those conclusions on my own, not because of a man of whom I only learned about recently.

Dakini

Citta said:

Which in essence is what the Dalai Lama said..if a point of Buddhist doctrine is contradicted by science then one option is to change the doctrine.

I think most Buddhists would re-assess doctrine if clear evidence emerged against teachings like rebirth and the realms. But don't secular Buddhists reject this stuff anyway, regarding it as "supernatural"?
I dont know...do they ? I am still unclear what a "secular Buddhist" looks like..from where I stand it looks to me as though there is a spectrum of belief.
The point of secular Buddhism is that it's for people who can't swallow rebirth. Batchelor's position is that it's something unknowable, and it's ok to say "I don't know", to be agnostic about it. He says that if Buddhism encourages questioning the teachings, then it should be ok to leave certain things a question mark. Otherwise, if as he was taught by his Tibetan lama, you question, but you're supposed to come to the "right" conclusion, that's dogma.

I've said this before, but I think secular Buddhism has a place in Buddhism. It provides a space for people who do question rebirth. They can still practice Buddhism without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because they can't get their minds around rebirth.

Batchelor raises people's hackles because he dares to swim against the tide and have his own opinion, plus he has the nerve to back up his opinions with scriptural quotes. And he taught himself Pali, just so he could read the sutras in the original language (vs. Tibetan or Korean, or Chinese or Japanese), to try to see what the Buddha really said. Now another reason he irritates people is that they say he cherry-picks which scriptures he feels are valid, and which are represent a later influence on Buddhism. But everyone does that. There's a lot of disagreement among scholars of Buddhism as to what means what, even among Theravada monk scholars, so...meh. :-/

He and Martine are very into meditation because of their Zen training in Korea.

vinlyn

@Dakini, I think you're in the ballpark, but oversimplifying it a bit. As a secular Buddhist of sorts, I am open-minded about rebirth and realms (though, as yet, see no evidence for them), but reject other aspects of the religious Buddhism I "grew up with" in Thailand. You're correct when you say it's a spectrum...or it may even be a mix of secular and religious Buddhism.

Dakini

Well, I wasn't saying all secular Buddhists reject rebirth out of hand. As Batchelor says, many are agnostic about it, which means being open-minded about it. Others may reject it. The point is that Secular Buddhism gives those who don't accept rebirth (and other faith-based aspects of Buddhism, such as the existence of multiple Buddhas, or the 32 realms of existence) a home where they're welcome as Buddhists.

I find Batchelor's presentation of certain teachings to make more sense than the traditional manner of teaching certain things, too. I have no problem with rebirth, but I find him useful for his (what appears to me to be a) sensible, straightforward presentation of certain concepts.

vinlyn

@Dakini, cool. I especially agree in re the existence of multiple Buddhas and the 32 realms of existence. Here you've hit it on the head...a variety of topics that secular Buddhists may or may not be able to accept.

driedleaf

I think perhaps some Secular Buddhists may make the mistake of taking something at face value instead of leaving it for further investigation. There is nothing written or handed down where it is mandatory to automatically believe something I don't think.

Dakini

driedleaf said:

I think perhaps some Secular Buddhists may make the mistake of taking something at face value instead of leaving it for further investigation. There is nothing written or handed down where it is mandatory to automatically believe something I don't think.

Well, this is exactly what got Batchelor started on the Secular Buddhist path. He became disillusioned with his Buddhist training at a Tibetan monastery where he was a monk, because the lama taught rebirth. "Testing" and critically examining the teachings was ok, as long as one arrived at the "right" conclusion, Batchelor found out. He felt that the Buddha's exhortation to test the teachings wasn't promoted sincerely. His lama told him belief in rebirth was a requirement. So Batchelor felt he had to leave, because he couldn't accept rebirth. Since he really was devoted to Buddhism and to the monastic life, he gave it another try in a Zen monastery in Korea, but that wasn't any different, in some respects.

In view of the fact that the whole point of practicing the dharma and aiming for Enlightenment is said to be for the purpose of "ending the cycle of rebirths", then belief in rebirth would appear to be fundamental.

So Batchelor has forged a path whereby that belief needn't be fundamental. He also says the idea of a "cycle of rebirths" is a Hindu influence on Buddhism, and that the earliest-recorded teachings don't speak of rebirth, but simply of arising and ceasing. All phenomena arise and cease, i.e. are impermanent.

Jeffrey

I like Batchelor but he is not agnostic. He says that rebirth was a cultural artifact. That is a view rather than a non-view.

BhikkhuJayasara

Jeffrey said:

I like Batchelor but he is not agnostic. He says that rebirth was a cultural artifact. That is a view rather than a non-view.

I don't think he ever claims to be agnostic, but I agree with your statement.

Dakini

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position. He says saying, "We don't know" whether or not there is rebirth, is a perfectly acceptable position. However, in his later writing, after he learns Pali and researches the scriptures, he does come to the conclusion that the Buddha did not teach rebirth, and that this concept is of Indian influence.

Jeffrey

Ah somehow reading @Dakinis post the word agnostic appeared to me but it must have been my mind playing tricks on me. My teacher never says I have to believe in rebirth. I think I got lucky with a really authentic teacher. Most of the problems people claim of Tibetan Buddhism haven't happened with my teacher. Maybe there is a different teaching style for monks?

BhikkhuJayasara

Dakini said:

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position. He says saying, "We don't know" whether or not there is rebirth, is a perfectly acceptable position. However, in his later writing, after he learns Pali and researches the scriptures, he does come to the conclusion that the Buddha did not teach rebirth, and that this concept is of Indian influence.

Then he must not know the difference between agnostic and atheism then.. if he contradicts himself like that.

as for the buddha not teaching rebirth.. I agree, he taught re-becoming :P... something with no "Indian influence". Even so the Buddha was a man of his time, and taught in that time, I see no reason to think "ooooh Indian influence.. so bad".

Dakini

Jayantha said:

Dakini said:

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position. He says saying, "We don't know" whether or not there is rebirth, is a perfectly acceptable position. However, in his later writing, after he learns Pali and researches the scriptures, he does come to the conclusion that the Buddha did not teach rebirth, and that this concept is of Indian influence.

Then he must not know the difference between agnostic and atheism then.. if he contradicts himself like that..

The way I take it is that his own personal thinking has evolved, but as for his "Secular Buddhism", it accepts both atheist and agnostic positions.

Lots of scholars of Buddhism debate about which elements represent "Hindu" or "Indian" influences on Buddhism: Western scholars, Theravadan scholars, Japanese scholars, etc. It's just one of those things. Some people are driven to try to figure out what the Buddha "really" taught.

Dakini

Jeffrey said:

Ah somehow reading @Dakinis post the word agnostic appeared to me but it must have been my mind playing tricks on me. My teacher never says I have to believe in rebirth. I think I got lucky with a really authentic teacher. Most of the problems people claim of Tibetan Buddhism haven't happened with my teacher. Maybe there is a different teaching style for monks?

Maybe so. Maybe some teachers allow more flexibility than others. idk.

DairyLama

Dakini said:

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position.

I disagree, the clue is in the title.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

The point I am making is that to assume secular Buddhists are following Batchelor is a faulty premise.

OK, but like I said secular Buddhism is commonly associated with Batchelor's ideas.
And basically "secular" means non-religious.

DairyLama

Dakini said:

The point is that Secular Buddhism gives those who don't accept rebirth (and other faith-based aspects of Buddhism, such as the existence of multiple Buddhas, or the 32 realms of existence) a home where they're welcome as Buddhists.

Yes, I think that's the real value of secular Buddhism.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

As a secular Buddhist of sorts, I am open-minded about rebirth and realms...

I'm guessing that the majority of western Buddhists are open-minded on these questions - but does that make them "secular Buddhists"?

BhikkhuJayasara

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

The point is that Secular Buddhism gives those who don't accept rebirth (and other faith-based aspects of Buddhism, such as the existence of multiple Buddhas, or the 32 realms of existence) a home where they're welcome as Buddhists.

Yes, I think that's the real value of secular Buddhism.

I've never been to any "buddhist place" theravada or mahayana, that makes people not feel at home because they don't believe in rebirth..I think that has more to do with the PERSON themselves and their misgivings about it, feeling more comfortable being at a place where it won't be talked about, or if it is it's only the vein of " we don't deal with that silly religious stuff".

hell I'm working towards being a monk and I neither "believe" in these things( I am agnostic with a strong feeling towards rebirth since childhood), nor have I seen them through my own experience yet.. I should probably go secular then too.. lol :P.

MaryAnne

PedanticPorpoise said:

vinlyn said:

As a secular Buddhist of sorts, I am open-minded about rebirth and realms...

I'm guessing that the majority of western Buddhists are open-minded on these questions - but does that make them "secular Buddhists"?

I believe the best answer to that question would come from each individual follower of the Buddhist path. It's a label only they should apply to themselves, IMO. Because only they know how they feel / what they believe when it comes to each of the "supernatural" aspects of Buddhism; such as rebirth, reincarnation, spirits, hell realms, "god" (as in some omnipotent being who sits behind the scenes deciding our individual fates and rebirths based on - well, I suppose our precept adherence and overall Karmic scores), etc.

Actually, once you remove the "god" from the picture, (and that's easy to do in Buddhism, isn't it?) one would have to wonder how all those things happening "on the other side" get decided and carried out. Who decides (after we die) how to score our life and how we will come back- as a dung beetle or as a human again?
Who makes sure that if we are a thief in this life, we come back as a poor peasant with nothing in the next? Who decided that we are all each here in this life doing what we do, experiencing what we experience all because of the things we did (or didn't do) in another life past?
Who controls all this? God? What if I don't believe in [this] god?

Well, I have no idea why this rambling came about on my part.... LOL I haven't even had my first cuppa coffee today!

Peace.

caz

Agnosticism is certainly better then Rejection, Being open minded is wise, Buddha's teachings are from profound insight what a fool is the one who rejects them through their own Ignorance.

vinlyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

vinlyn said:

As a secular Buddhist of sorts, I am open-minded about rebirth and realms...

I'm guessing that the majority of western Buddhists are open-minded on these questions - but does that make them "secular Buddhists"?

I can't speak for them. I can only say that I look more and more at Buddhism as a philosophy, I leave the magic out of Buddhism, I don't believe there is any real evidence that Buddha was omnipotent, I don't believe in the concept of many Buddhas preceding Siddhartha, I don't believe in rebirth, etc. I remain open-minded about most of those things. I believe that Buddha is one of the greatest and wisest men in history and that he provided "lessons for life" and a moral framework that is among the greatest mankind has devised.

Dakini

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position.

I disagree, the clue is in the title.

Well, obviously, but the fact remains that he does say in the book that he takes an agnostic position. That part isn't arguable. The title is a little strange, when you think about it, because Buddhism is non-theistic. So it's a bit of nonsensical title. But "Confession of a Buddhist Agnostic" isn't quite as catchy, somehow...

Deepankar

There is this another aspect to share. In most of the sutra, there are these six areas for a wholesome session carried out by buddha, ie Meeting minute recorded by Ananda; at now(time); by who(buddha); audience; where and agenda...blar blar blar! So secholarlic secular yet amazingly beyond time and space.

Patr

Read somewhere that the Holy Roman Emporer took reincarnation out of the original Bible, anyone care to expand on this?

If so then he must be the first secular Christian.... hmm, look where that led to. IF TRUE.!?

Florian

@MaryAnne "Actually, once you remove the "god" from the picture, (and that's easy to do in Buddhism, isn't it?) one would have to wonder how all those things happening "on the other side" get decided and carried out. "

How does a rock decide which way to fall off a cliff? There's no need for anyone to decide these things. If there were they'd have to be as busy as a Maxwellian demon 24/7 for all eternity.

I still cannot see the point of secular Buddhism. I'm a agnostic on rebirth and many other things but don't feel any more or less 'secular' because of it.

As for Constantine, the NT leaves so many Christian texts out that it is hardly even representative. It is an excellent manual for a religion of Empire and Commerce, as the Chinese govt. have recently realised.

DairyLama

Jayantha said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

The point is that Secular Buddhism gives those who don't accept rebirth (and other faith-based aspects of Buddhism, such as the existence of multiple Buddhas, or the 32 realms of existence) a home where they're welcome as Buddhists.

Yes, I think that's the real value of secular Buddhism.

I've never been to any "buddhist place" theravada or mahayana, that makes people not feel at home because they don't believe in rebirth..I think that has more to do with the PERSON themselves and their misgivings about it, feeling more comfortable being at a place where it won't be talked about, or if it is it's only the vein of " we don't deal with that silly religious stuff".

Good point - the great majority of Buddhist traditions don't make a big deal out of this stuff and don't expect people to believe in rebirth and the realms etc. I think some western Buddhists have an aversion to "religion" due to being brought up with a Christian ethos? Maybe that problem will reduce as western societies become inreasingly secular.

DairyLama

MaryAnne said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

I'm guessing that the majority of western Buddhists are open-minded on these questions - but does that make them "secular Buddhists"?

I believe the best answer to that question would come from each individual follower of the Buddhist path. It's a label only they should apply to themselves, IMO.

I agree, but I wonder if people are clear about the label - to me "secular" implies a rejection of the religious, not a truly agnostic position, ie leaning more towards disbelief than "don't know".

DairyLama

Dakini said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Dakini said:

In his book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist", he says he takes an agnostic position.

I disagree, the clue is in the title.

Well, obviously, but the fact remains that he does say in the book that he takes an agnostic position. That part isn't arguable. The title is a little strange, when you think about it, because Buddhism is non-theistic. So it's a bit of nonsensical title. But "Confession of a Buddhist Agnostic" isn't quite as catchy, somehow...

I've read all Stephens books and to me he comes across as rejecting the "religious" content of Buddhism, not as an agnostic.

vinlyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

MaryAnne said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

I'm guessing that the majority of western Buddhists are open-minded on these questions - but does that make them "secular Buddhists"?

I believe the best answer to that question would come from each individual follower of the Buddhist path. It's a label only they should apply to themselves, IMO.

I agree, but I wonder if people are clear about the label - to me "secular" implies a rejection of the religious, not a truly agnostic position, ie leaning more towards disbelief than "don't know".

"Rejection" is such a strong word, and the way in which you are using it seems very negative.

If I am offered a tray with a cherry turnover and a blueberry turnover, I will choose the cherry turnover. It's my preference. It doesn't mean I have rejected the blueberry turnover. It's just not my preference. If the tray had 2 blueberry turnovers, I probably would have eaten one.