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.
I'm not sure it's a question of convenience or inconvenience. The fact that a particular school of Buddhism or all schools of Buddhism accept something doesn't mean that all Buddhists accept it.
No you are right there are probably at least 35 sri lankan theravadian buddhists out of 20 million that disagree.
Is that scientific data, or the world according to Victorious?
And if it were ever true that all people in any one religion believe 100% of any particular teaching, still doesn't make it true.
The particular post that I was referring to is about the teachings about karma. There is a heckuva lot of difference between the general belief about karma in Southeast Asia (for example) than there is among western Buddhists. There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
I'm not sure it's a question of convenience or inconvenience. The fact that a particular school of Buddhism or all schools of Buddhism accept something doesn't mean that all Buddhists accept it.
No, but it means that some peoples' personal opinions are at odds with the teachings of the tradition they are involved in, which can be quite uncomfortable. People sometimes deal with this discomfort by trying to pretend the tradition they're involved with doesn't teach certain things, which gets very confusing.
There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
Obviously. But most Buddhist traditions aren't secular - well, actually the only secular Buddhist tradition is secular Buddhism. Actually I don't have a problem with secular Buddhism, which represents an honest rejection of the religious content of Buddhist teachings. What I struggle with is the way that closet secular Buddhists in non-secular traditions try to impose their narrow definition of Buddhism.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm not sure it's a question of convenience or inconvenience. The fact that a particular school of Buddhism or all schools of Buddhism accept something doesn't mean that all Buddhists accept it.
No you are right there are probably at least 35 sri lankan theravadian buddhists out of 20 million that disagree.
I'm not sure it's a question of convenience or inconvenience. The fact that a particular school of Buddhism or all schools of Buddhism accept something doesn't mean that all Buddhists accept it.
No, but it means that some peoples' personal opinions are at odds with the teachings of the tradition they are involved in, which can be quite uncomfortable. People sometimes deal with this discomfort by trying to pretend the tradition they're involved with doesn't teach certain things, which gets very confusing.
But just to be clear, I'm not a "some people" who has denied what has been taught.
There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
Obviously. But most Buddhist traditions aren't secular - well, actually the only secular Buddhist tradition is secular Buddhism. Actually I don't have a problem with secular Buddhism, which represents an honest rejection of the religious content of Buddhist teachings. What I struggle with is the way that closet secular Buddhists in non-secular traditions try to impose their narrow definition of Buddhism.
You're defining secular Buddhism in a very narrow way.
There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
Obviously. But most Buddhist traditions aren't secular - well, actually the only secular Buddhist tradition is secular Buddhism. Actually I don't have a problem with secular Buddhism, which represents an honest rejection of the religious content of Buddhist teachings. What I struggle with is the way that closet secular Buddhists in non-secular traditions try to impose their narrow definition of Buddhism.
You're defining secular Buddhism in a very narrow way.
It's secular Buddhists who want to define Buddhism in a very narrow way.
There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
Obviously. But most Buddhist traditions aren't secular - well, actually the only secular Buddhist tradition is secular Buddhism. Actually I don't have a problem with secular Buddhism, which represents an honest rejection of the religious content of Buddhist teachings. What I struggle with is the way that closet secular Buddhists in non-secular traditions try to impose their narrow definition of Buddhism.
You're defining secular Buddhism in a very narrow way.
It's secular Buddhists who want to define Buddhism in a very narrow way.
For the most part, they/we secular Buddhists define it for themselves. They don't try to force their definition on others.
@vinlyn, some secular Buddhists such as Batchelor do go through polemics of why there view is right. Of course everyone does that.
Yes, we all do that, including virtually every one right here on this forum.
I rather expect the writer of books and lecturers on the topic to express why they think what they think. But I'm talking about the average every-day secular Buddhist. That's why I said and underlined "for the most part".
I do not actually think there is an average every-day kind of secular buddhist. All I have come across so far have been singularly devoted to their practice in a way that not many average every-day buddhists in SL are.
So that nobody gets me wrong. What ever I think of their "going about it" they seem to be very dhamma devoted people. And I am not saying that just to gainsay you vinlyn.
There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
Obviously. But most Buddhist traditions aren't secular - well, actually the only secular Buddhist tradition is secular Buddhism. Actually I don't have a problem with secular Buddhism, which represents an honest rejection of the religious content of Buddhist teachings. What I struggle with is the way that closet secular Buddhists in non-secular traditions try to impose their narrow definition of Buddhism.
You're defining secular Buddhism in a very narrow way.
It's secular Buddhists who want to define Buddhism in a very narrow way.
For the most part, they/we secular Buddhists define it for themselves. They don't try to force their definition on others.
You mean you make up your own version of Buddhism? Do you think of yourself as a secular Buddhist - I thought previously you said you were Theravadan?
You mean you make up your own version of Buddhism? Do you think of yourself as a secular Buddhist - I thought previously you said you were Theravadan?
Well, first, I don't see it as one or the other. My experience with Buddhism has been through my time in Thailand, which is Theravadan.
But in terms of making up my own version of Buddhism...in a sense, yes. In the same sense that people around the world are tending to follow a trend where increasingly they look at their religion and accept in within their own perspective. There's not a Catholic I know who really accepts as a matter of faith virtually anything the Pope says. They'll say they do, and then if you ask them about abortion or birth control they'll say, "Well that's different." And many think you no longer are required to go to Confession. And yet, they go Mass almost every week and take Communion. They've adapted their religion to their own view of life. And that's what I see people doing right here on this forum. How many discussions/arguments are there over the meaning of karma? Whether the scriptures are actually the words of Buddha? Whether the 5 Precepts are actual rules or just training rules? Which branch of Buddhism is the most authentic? I could go on and on. And, as Victorious just mentioned, even the official schools of Buddhism are all significantly different.
Here's what I see secular Buddhism as: I seek wisdom wherever I find it. It's just that I find a lot of it within Buddhism.
The Mahayana tradition and Chan and Zen and Vajrajana all "made up" their own version of buddhism too? Or is that fundamentaly different?
Those are established traditions and is fundamentally different to what I was referring to, ie individuals making up their own personalised version of Buddhism. I'm not saying one tradition is more authentic than another, I'm saying it's good to be clear about how the various traditions approach things, and the differences between them.
Here's what I see secular Buddhism as: I seek wisdom wherever I find it. It's just that I find a lot of it within Buddhism.
You're trying to redefine secular Buddhism as some sort of personalised mix-and-match approach, but that isn't what it means. Secular Buddhism is straightforwardly defined as an approach which rejects the religious content of Buddhism. "Secular" means non-religious - it's quite clear.
Here's what I see secular Buddhism as: I seek wisdom wherever I find it. It's just that I find a lot of it within Buddhism.
You're trying to redefine secular Buddhism as some sort of personalised mix-and-match approach, but that isn't what it means. Secular Buddhism is straightforwardly defined as an approach which rejects the religious content of Buddhism. "Secular" means non-religious - it's quite clear.
I'm very aware of what "secular Buddhism" means. How each person views it -- or religious Buddhism -- is not "quite clear".
Here's what I see secular Buddhism as: I seek wisdom wherever I find it. It's just that I find a lot of it within Buddhism.
You're trying to redefine secular Buddhism as some sort of personalised mix-and-match approach, but that isn't what it means. Secular Buddhism is straightforwardly defined as an approach which rejects the religious content of Buddhism. "Secular" means non-religious - it's quite clear.
I'm very aware of what "secular Buddhism" means. How each person views it -- or religious Buddhism -- is not "quite clear".
The meaning of secular Buddhism is quite clear. I think what you're describing is a personalised mix-and-match approach, bits from here and bits from there.
SpinyNorman, it seems that the problem you have with secular Buddhism is that it means a person doesn't see Buddhism as the be-all and end-all. Any religion may also be looked at secularly (I know, that's not a word). I could read the New Testament and adopt many or all of its principles, and still not accept that Jesus was the son of God or his magic. I can, likewise, take the principles of Buddhism and not accept that Buddha, when enlightened, saw all truth and knowledge.
I can do whatever I damn well please because I have freedom of thought.
Secular Buddhism is not some very specific school of Buddhism. It's a relatively expansive term for a non-religious/non-supernatural and pragmatic viewpoint of Buddhist teachings. When you strip away the magic part of a religion, you also strip away the requirement of buying into a belief system lock, stock, and barrel. There's no entity telling you that you must believe in it...that's it's all or nothing at all. Which is exactly, in a simple way, what Batchelor and others have done.
Secular Buddhism is not some very specific school of Buddhism. It's a relatively expansive term for a non-religious/non-supernatural and pragmatic viewpoint of Buddhist teachings.
OK, non-religious and non-supernatural. Isn't that what I said? But I'm still not clear whether you regard yourself as a secular Buddhist or as a Theravada Buddhist?
Secular Buddhism is not some very specific school of Buddhism. It's a relatively expansive term for a non-religious/non-supernatural and pragmatic viewpoint of Buddhist teachings.
Right, OK, non-religious and non-supernatural. Isn't that what I said?
As soon as you take away the religious and supernatural aspect of a religion you introduce freedom thought into the discussion. If it's Christianity, and you take away magic and angels and the Devil, you take away the requirement to believe in heaven or else. Yet, Jesus' basic principles for living -- or Buddha's basic principles of living -- do not have to be accepted...or for that matter rejected. Pragmatic has a very specific definition, which different than saying that pragmatic leads to each person coming to the same conclusions.
I know you want me to sing, "Gimme that old time religion, Gimme that old time religion, Gimme that old time religion, It's good enough for me." But I'm not gonna join that chorus.
I don't have to be secular OR Theravadan. I can be some combination of the two.
The Mahayana tradition and Chan and Zen and Vajrajana all "made up" their own version of buddhism too? Or is that fundamentaly different?
Those are established traditions and is fundamentally different to what I was referring to, ie individuals making up their own personalised version of Buddhism. I'm not saying one tradition is more authentic than another, I'm saying it's good to be clear about how the various traditions approach things, and the differences between them.
You keep using the term "made up" as if someone sat down and said "I'm going to drop the parts of Buddhism I don't like and here's what it should teach instead and I'm going to rewrite these couple of chapters and the monks should now wear polka-dot robes..." No school of Buddhism "made up" their teachings. Well, to be truthful, there are a couple that pretty much did that but they're not well known or popular.
The word that should be used is "interpreted" instead. Buddhism is much more than a set of lectures given and passed down from Buddha in the suttas. Traditionally we say Buddhism is a stool with three legs: The Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Buddha himself and what he said and the life he lived is but one leg.
The Dharma is not just the words of Buddha, but the all-compassing Noble Truths he articulated. Buddha did not invent the Dharma any more than Newton invented gravity. You and I have as much right to expound on the Dharma as Buddha did. The great Masters who founded the various schools of Buddhism took the Dharma as Buddha taught and enterpreted it according to their insight.
Then we have the Sangha, the collection of Buddhists from each century and culture who transcribed and lived and taught their own flavor of Buddhism and passed it on to the next generation and culture. Is sitting Zazen with your face to a wall or entering into koan solving contests with your Master what the Buddha taught? Yes and no. The Buddha never asked or answered a koan in his life, far as we know. But the Dharma tells us correct meditation and correct effort and correct understanding are necessary, and the koans are one attempt to bring this teaching into practice.
I think what you're describing is cherry-picking the bits you find useful from various traditions - fine, but that's another thing entirely.
...
And BTW, I think cherry picking is a good thing.
My mother used to pick cherries. She didn't pick the rotten ones. She didn't pick the ones with worms. She picked and at the good ones.
What do you think when you hear a Christian say, "I believe in every word in the Bible, and I believe that every word there is the word of God"? I bet you think that's foolish, but then you turn around and want that to be basically what a Buddhist says.
To get anywhere on the path it is vital to make it your own. Not to sit in mediation because one or other teacher or book tells you to but because you yourself have arrived at the conclusion that this is the path and this is how I want to practise it.
I think the suttas tell us to examine the dhamma like a goldsmith looks at a piece of ore to determine if it is worth using. The Simile goes something like that. . So that is not only a trait in Secular Buddhism but a central part of all Dhamma. Not just to accept but to think and judge for yourself.
Maybe in the beginning you need help but the dhamma is a path you walk alone even if it be on a path somebody else made you still gotta take it and make it your own.
That is how it feels to me. I am grown up in a theravada country and feel at home there but I do not buy everything in theravada.
Also before Mahayana and Zen etc became accepted traditions one or two or three people sat down and did some serious cherry picking. Ne?
Mostly I do not agree at all with secular buddhism because I do believe in reincarnation and existance of gods. But I am pretty sure that knowledge of these things are not neccessary for cultivation. At least my practise.
So what does it matter is secular buddhists try to turn the pali canon inside out in, what seems to me, be an absolutley fruitless effort to remove all nonsecular influences?
I mean I dont get furious because Mahayana has a dumpsterload of canonical texts that I feel are not really kosher?
Do I? I do not go around bashing Zen practitioners for calling Nibbana for Satori. (ridiculous if you ask me .
I know you want me to sing, "Gimme that old time religion, Gimme that old time religion, Gimme that old time religion, It's good enough for me." But I'm not gonna join that chorus.
Whatever gave you that idea? I was actually looking for some clarity. You said you were a Theravadan Buddhist but you sound much more like a secular Buddhist.
What do you think when you hear a Christian say, "I believe in every word in the Bible, and I believe that every word there is the word of God"? I bet you think that's foolish, but then you turn around and want that to be basically what a Buddhist says.
The Mahayana tradition and Chan and Zen and Vajrajana all "made up" their own version of buddhism too? Or is that fundamentaly different?
Those are established traditions and is fundamentally different to what I was referring to, ie individuals making up their own personalised version of Buddhism. I'm not saying one tradition is more authentic than another, I'm saying it's good to be clear about how the various traditions approach things, and the differences between them.
You keep using the term "made up" as if someone sat down and said "I'm going to drop the parts of Buddhism I don't like and here's what it should teach instead and I'm going to rewrite these couple of chapters and the monks should now wear polka-dot robes..."
Yes, I think that's what some individuals are trying to do.
The Mahayana tradition and Chan and Zen and Vajrajana all "made up" their own version of buddhism too? Or is that fundamentaly different?
Those are established traditions and is fundamentally different to what I was referring to, ie individuals making up their own personalised version of Buddhism. I'm not saying one tradition is more authentic than another, I'm saying it's good to be clear about how the various traditions approach things, and the differences between them.
You keep using the term "made up" as if someone sat down and said "I'm going to drop the parts of Buddhism I don't like and here's what it should teach instead and I'm going to rewrite these couple of chapters and the monks should now wear polka-dot robes..."
Yes, I think that's what some individuals are trying to do.
OK, so in your opinion, what is the proper or authentic practice>
Again ... there is no Zen nor Mahayana nor Secular Buddhism ... other than in the heads of people.
There are here and now (individual selfillusions) typings on a forum. There are here and now views that I agree probably are idiosyncratic (due to moha).
However those views are all we got to get us to nibbana...
Make no mistake. Those views are yours and yours only whether you believe them to be or no.
Comments
And if it were ever true that all people in any one religion believe 100% of any particular teaching, still doesn't make it true.
The particular post that I was referring to is about the teachings about karma. There is a heckuva lot of difference between the general belief about karma in Southeast Asia (for example) than there is among western Buddhists. There's often a significant difference in the beliefs about karma between religious Buddhists and secular Buddhists.
I rather expect the writer of books and lecturers on the topic to express why they think what they think. But I'm talking about the average every-day secular Buddhist. That's why I said and underlined "for the most part".
I do not actually think there is an average every-day kind of secular buddhist. All I have come across so far have been singularly devoted to their practice in a way that not many average every-day buddhists in SL are.
So that nobody gets me wrong. What ever I think of their "going about it" they seem to be very dhamma devoted people. And I am not saying that just to gainsay you vinlyn.
/Victor
I am really curious.
But in terms of making up my own version of Buddhism...in a sense, yes. In the same sense that people around the world are tending to follow a trend where increasingly they look at their religion and accept in within their own perspective. There's not a Catholic I know who really accepts as a matter of faith virtually anything the Pope says. They'll say they do, and then if you ask them about abortion or birth control they'll say, "Well that's different." And many think you no longer are required to go to Confession. And yet, they go Mass almost every week and take Communion. They've adapted their religion to their own view of life. And that's what I see people doing right here on this forum. How many discussions/arguments are there over the meaning of karma? Whether the scriptures are actually the words of Buddha? Whether the 5 Precepts are actual rules or just training rules? Which branch of Buddhism is the most authentic? I could go on and on. And, as Victorious just mentioned, even the official schools of Buddhism are all significantly different.
Here's what I see secular Buddhism as: I seek wisdom wherever I find it. It's just that I find a lot of it within Buddhism.
Secular Buddhism is straightforwardly defined as an approach which rejects the religious content of Buddhism. "Secular" means non-religious - it's quite clear.
I can do whatever I damn well please because I have freedom of thought.
I think what you're describing is cherry-picking the bits you find useful from various traditions - fine, but that's another thing entirely.
Of course you can do "whatever you damn well please", but how is that relevant to the discussion? There's no need for melodrama.
I know you want me to sing, "Gimme that old time religion, Gimme that old time religion,
Gimme that old time religion, It's good enough for me." But I'm not gonna join that chorus.
I don't have to be secular OR Theravadan. I can be some combination of the two.
The word that should be used is "interpreted" instead. Buddhism is much more than a set of lectures given and passed down from Buddha in the suttas. Traditionally we say Buddhism is a stool with three legs: The Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Buddha himself and what he said and the life he lived is but one leg.
The Dharma is not just the words of Buddha, but the all-compassing Noble Truths he articulated. Buddha did not invent the Dharma any more than Newton invented gravity. You and I have as much right to expound on the Dharma as Buddha did. The great Masters who founded the various schools of Buddhism took the Dharma as Buddha taught and enterpreted it according to their insight.
Then we have the Sangha, the collection of Buddhists from each century and culture who transcribed and lived and taught their own flavor of Buddhism and passed it on to the next generation and culture. Is sitting Zazen with your face to a wall or entering into koan solving contests with your Master what the Buddha taught? Yes and no. The Buddha never asked or answered a koan in his life, far as we know. But the Dharma tells us correct meditation and correct effort and correct understanding are necessary, and the koans are one attempt to bring this teaching into practice.
So...it's complicated.
My mother used to pick cherries. She didn't pick the rotten ones. She didn't pick the ones with worms. She picked and at the good ones.
What do you think when you hear a Christian say, "I believe in every word in the Bible, and I believe that every word there is the word of God"? I bet you think that's foolish, but then you turn around and want that to be basically what a Buddhist says.
I think the suttas tell us to examine the dhamma like a goldsmith looks at a piece of ore to determine if it is worth using. The Simile goes something like that.
Maybe in the beginning you need help but the dhamma is a path you walk alone even if it be on a path somebody else made you still gotta take it and make it your own.
That is how it feels to me. I am grown up in a theravada country and feel at home there but I do not buy everything in theravada.
Also before Mahayana and Zen etc became accepted traditions one or two or three people sat down and did some serious cherry picking. Ne?
Mostly I do not agree at all with secular buddhism because I do believe in reincarnation and existance of gods. But I am pretty sure that knowledge of these things are not neccessary for cultivation. At least my practise.
So what does it matter is secular buddhists try to turn the pali canon inside out in, what seems to me, be an absolutley fruitless effort to remove all nonsecular influences?
I mean I dont get furious because Mahayana has a dumpsterload of canonical texts that I feel are not really kosher?
Do I? I do not go around bashing Zen practitioners for calling Nibbana for Satori. (ridiculous if you ask me
That being said I do love a good discussion.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers
Victor
For some people 'beliefs' practice energizes and motivates them. Others like a formless practice such as mindfulness.
:-/
There are here and now (individual selfillusions) typings on a forum. There are here and now views that I agree probably are idiosyncratic (due to moha).
However those views are all we got to get us to nibbana...
Make no mistake. Those views are yours and yours only whether you believe them to be or no.
/Victor
EDIT: I meant in public.
/Victor