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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
To repeatedly use the word rejection is to insist that the glass is half empty, and not half full, coming from a totally negative perspective.
Why should anyone's choices be construed as a negative response, especially when they (some here, anyway) are clearly stating there is no negativity - or rejection- involved in their choice?
I don't understand, @pedanticporpoise, why you seem to be trying to get us secular types to - I don't know- admit we are rejecting what you call "traditional Buddhism" because we're just into rejecting (all) religion, and not accept at face value that it's simply what we choose not to believe in, for any number of good reasons...
In fact, it's the discussions on this forum that have moved me more toward the secular side.
It doesn't matter to me whatsoever what someone else thinks of karma other than that it might bother them if I ram my views down their throat. Now it's a different story when they ram *their* views down my throat. In that case, I don't like to be criticized even if they think they are doing the right thing by making me be more scientific or whatever they are thinking.
You need to reread my post and read what I actually wrote, rather than what you wanted me to have said. We were talking about the inappropriate use of the word "reject". Just like I didn't reject a blueberry turnover, I don't reject rebirth or certain other Buddhist concepts. I am open to being convinced. But thus far, the evidence is not there.
I don't consider the subset of disbeliefs (disbelief in karma, disbelief in rebirth) often ascribed to "secular Buddhism" particularly remarkable or worthy of some new sect status; what about disbelief in one of the Four Noble Truths or several parts of the Eightfold Path; would it be fruitful to form a subsect in Buddhism made up of, say, those who believe in #1, 3 and 4 of the 4NT and 1-6 folds of the 8FP?
Isn't it, rather, the case in Buddhism that each of us is constantly exploring our path and that no particular belief or disbelief is really that remarkable, much less something that needs to be signed off on as constituting membership in some kind of "this" or "that" club within Buddhism?
The Dalai Lama himself has said he's not certain about the concept of rebirth - does that mean he, or the Gelug school, are examples of secular Buddhism?
I'm definitely not troubled by people having varied views on karma, rebirth, and a thousand other issues within Buddhism; I'm just wary of the impulse to create yet more clubs (labels) when so much of our practice is about shedding the need to label.
Of course, man has a tendency to classify things.
But I think those of us who are more on the secular side of Buddhism have been pushed there by people who criticize or imply a criticism when someone questions certain topics.
@sile
The Dalai Lama himself has said he's not certain about the concept of rebirth - does that mean he, or the Gelug school, are examples of secular Buddhism?
Wow, so is he the reincarnation, rebirthed, reborn, reformed, re-came 14th Dalai Lama
or the whole Tulku thing is a sham?
:-/
But the entire philosophy of Buddhism is a skeptic's heaven
On the serious side, I think our experience of being raised in culturally-fundamentalist societies tends to make us leap to conclusions that Buddhism requires similar dogmatic behavior. Ask a teacher of Buddhism flat out if you "should" believe in karma - see what the answers are. In my experience, Buddhist teachers tend to point you towards evidence they feel is worth considering, but never in my experience has any Buddhist teacher pressured me to believe in anything.
@Patr
I don't think being open-minded is a sham. The Dalai Lama has said rebirth as we understand it could be something that happens, or it could be a misunderstanding, or something in between. Probably more helpful if we look at some actual quotes - I'll try to find some.
We are so used to things having to be black and white ("Heaven exists!" or "Heaven doesn't exist!") that when we encounter open-mindedness, I think it's hard for us to know how to deal with it. We feel that open-mindedness, or in-betweenness, is somehow shaky. In a way, many of us (myself included) would be emotionally more secure being given more boundaries; but Buddhism, from what I can see, is about removing boundaries.
It seems to me as if "secular Buddhism" has already been decided, by someone else, for me, and even though I feel I am in tons of ways a so-called "secular" Buddhist, I now have to explain that I nonetheless believe in karma and rebirth (but don't care if others don't).
I think just saying "Buddhist" is more than enough - there are huge variations already accepted within that label, and as we have discussed elsewhere, even the label "Buddhist" can be too narrow or misleading.
There is also, without question, often a tone of "secular (intelligent, modern) Buddhist" vs. "traditional (superstitious, uneducated) Buddhist" to the labeling system. I know that not everyone feels this way, certainly, but in reading Batchelor's writings, for example, a very clearly condescending tone is apparent towards non-secular Buddhists. I don't find anything like this tone, however, when, say, the Dalai Lama is discussing open-mindedness; i.e. when he talks of the possibility of rebirth existing or not existing, I don't sense any negative judgement toward either belief, whereas in Batchelor, the negative tone stands out quite clearly, to me at least.
One of the things that most drew me to Buddhism was a notable absence of negative, judgemental tone, so when I see it (rarely) in Buddhism, it arouses my curiosity.
If you feel drawn to distinguish yourself as a secular Buddhist, why is this?
Is it, for example, an instinct to distance ourselves from "other" Buddhists in some way?
If so, why is it important to us not to be mistaken for these other Buddhists?
I have found all of them sit on very similar asses . . . :wave:
Theravada was not the first type of Buddhism I came across, Tibetan was, but in my perspective there was too much superstition, too much mythology, and it didn't seem to fit me right and what I knew of what the Buddha said. When I found Theravada this mind could attach because it made more sense.
Because my mind then attached to Theravada, the ego then naturally says these other types that don't make as much sense to me are lacking, and Theravada is superior I every way. Then the ego boosts itself and developed more delusion and then it goes further into " hah look at those fools who prostrate and do silly things".
You see this a lot with athiests " hah look at those fools who believe in some imaginary god". Its the same roots in the mind.
Now I started with this ego and to an extent if truth be told I still do have the beliefs that " the true teachings of the Buddha" are the best. What I've come to find in my practice is that this is all fine and good " for me". So while my ego mind still has the bias( we all have biases based on our delusion), my mindfulness and practice teaches me to let go and that it doesn't matter what other people do, also I've come to know that there are many paths across the stream, and there are many paths up the mountain but only one view.
Just because you do not accept something does not mean you reject it.
I don't accept rebirth because I see no evidence of it. Show me evidence, I will accept it.
I am a secular Buddhist.
Buddhist: label
secular Buddhist: label of a label
I am: Am I?
I: The "I" does not exist from its own side
Personally, I realize I probably have so much work to do dealing with that last one that I shouldn't even begin to spend time on the other three, lol.
Why would someone's choice to follow secular Buddhism generate controversy, while a choice to follow Zen or other schools doesn't? It's just another "school", though one of more recent creation. Why the fuss?
Does one not believing in rebirth, karma, the realms, etc. make them less of a Buddhist?
Conversely, does one believing in any of these make them any less secular?
I think "agnostic Buddhist" might be a better label, for example, since it doesn't require any particular set of disbeliefs, whereas it seems to me "secular" tends to.
Language is so powerful - without meaning to, we can subscribe to a term that ends up shaping the thing it is attempting to describe; and since there isn't an agreed-upon definition/shape of "secular Buddhism" yet, it's good to try and choose the right term while we still can (if such a thing is seen as necessary, which it seems to some people is).
Fact is, regular Buddhism does not require belief in anything, and in fact warns strongly against such an ethic. in Buddhist terms, faith in this or that principle is meant to be a personal understanding, acquired through experience - not taken from someone else's.
There's no problem whatsoever in trying to define a certain, Western shape of Buddhism, not at all - I only worry about the very quick assumptions that seem to be going along with this particular term, secular Buddhism - case in point, that secular Buddhism is defined by disbelief in karma and rebirth - which for me, it's certainly not. And further, that calling it secular Buddhism implies something about regular Buddhism (hinting that regular Buddhism requires belief in this or that) which is not the case.
The word "reject" is not inappropriately used under the circumstances, in my opinion. If any words are being abused I'd say it was in the oxymoron "secular Buddhist."
Neither accepting or rejecting = agnostic.
Lately I have been thinking of "religious" or "spiritual" as relating very much to how much/how little I rely on something "other" than myself. I notice that when I am very afraid, I feel the urge to call on an "other." When I'm feeling balanced and safe, I'm more able to put into practice the aspect of teaching which (in my experience, always) stresses reliance on self, on one's own mind. But when very weak and afraid, I do call out to others--other humans, other beings, etc. I think this is interesting--almost as if the more "other" our support, the more "religious" it seems.
This means, among other things, that the definition of "religious" may be so personal, that it's really not possible to look at someone else's practice and say that it is overly-religious; we can't know what that person is thinking at that moment.
For the record, I believe that there is a time and place for all aspects of that religious-nonreligious spectrum; I don't feel like looking down on something that seems "religious," because I personally feel a benefit from such a feeling or state of mind, often. But I don't feel the need to push such a view; I would say, though, not to be in a rush to denigrate or discard this idea of a "religious" feeling; it may simply be a different state of mind, one which could be beneficial in some way at some point.
And I'm a Californiacator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
@nevermind & @Jeffery
Let's not start muddying the waters by promoting the idea that "faith" is a complex word or concept. It isn't. I'm pretty sure numbers 1 through 4 sums up the context of the word faith - in this particular discussion...
Faith
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs; the Jewish faith
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc.
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs