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? Religious Buddhism? Why not both? Or neither?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If secular means scientific and scientific means it has to have peer reviewed papers, conferences and so on, then you could draw a circle small enough to make all sorts of behavior outside of that into superstition/religion, etc.
Anyhow, words are as people use them, they are fuzzy categories. I'd say the way linguists think about semantics is very Buddhist, where as no word has an essential meaning and the boundaries between concepts and words are generally fuzzier than we hope or imagine.
And on the topic of belief, a secular belief is probably more falsifiable, but no one is going to go around say, "I hold the hypothesis, which has not yet been proven false, that water will boil at 100 degrees", we just say water boils at 100 degrees. Likewise a secular Buddhist thinks this system just might work. But if it doesn't work, there is no faith to fall back on. So it's 4 noble falsifiable propositions that have so far stood up to independent analysis and review. But no one wants me to talk like that.
That's a bit more than Freesangha at it's height. There was a couple women moderating there, too. Almost nobody on Freesangha these days. I don't remember seeing too many women on the old eSangha, but there were a few.
Women seem to come and go on Buddhist forums. That might be because men seem to be more aggressive, and that, as I'm sure you'll agree, can be a little off-putting.
One thing I have noticed out in the Real World is that in the sanghas I'm in contact with, women can be more numerous than men and have an equal footing in administration of their sanghas. I find this quite a bit different from Virtual Buddhism.
That stuff comes later. Much later in some cases.
I've been participating in a domestic violence support board for almost seven years, almost 100% female. Approaching Buddhist forums, at first, was a bit of a culture shock mainly because of the overwhelmingly male membership. It was more something to notice and then I never think about it, not until you mention it but yes, it is interesting.
As politically incorrect as it genuinely is, I find bantering and joking a helluva lot easier with the male versions of the species, something else to wonder about. This is true IRL as well . . . hmmm. Also, there seems to be less defensiveness or 'offense taken' be it direct criticism or imagined criticism. THAT is refreshing. This stands out in particular after experiences on the DV board, we're dealing with females coming from modern experiences of extreme male dominance, a very prickly bunch but sheesh, it's no wonder.
Gassho
Don't you oppress me . . .
And about the cessation of suffering, do you know anyone who has ceased suffering? I'm thinking you haven't, so... that's a belief. What kind of belief? Oh, I don't know... a RELIGIOUS belief.
I know people who have greatly reduced suffering, but they were not of any one particular religion. Some were Buddhist, others were Christian.
And I made no mention of religiosity.
I was just a tad confused by your post, but if I aided it...glad to have been of help!
And I made no mention of religiosity.
Two weeks ago I went to a Catholic Mass in a church I had never been to before. In fact, it's the first time I went to a Catholic service in over 2 years. Boring priest, too much singing, but a mostly beautiful building and a congregation that seemed into it. But it was interesting to observe the religiosity of the ceremony. Of course, I have seen just as much -- and sometimes more -- religiosity in Thai Buddhist temples, but it was still interesting to watch and compare religiosity to secularism.
Wikipedia
the "life is suffering" translation never made sense to me.. unless you add a second sentence " only because we make it that way".
two different traditions, but standing on fairly common ground.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html
"You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting. The Buddha taught four truths — not one — about life: There is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is an end of suffering, and there is a path of practice that puts an end to suffering. These truths, taken as a whole, are far from pessimistic. They're a practical, problem-solving approach — the way a doctor approaches an illness, or a mechanic a faulty engine. You identify a problem and look for its cause. You then put an end to the problem by eliminating the cause.
What's special about the Buddha's approach is that the problem he attacks is the whole of human suffering, and the solution he offers is something human beings can do for themselves. Just as a doctor with a surefire cure for measles isn't afraid of measles, the Buddha isn't afraid of any aspect of human suffering. And, having experienced a happiness totally unconditional, he's not afraid to point out the suffering and stress inherent in places where most of us would rather not see it — in the conditioned pleasures we cling to. He teaches us not to deny that suffering and stress or to run away from it, but to stand still and face up to it, to examine it carefully. That way — by understanding it — we can ferret out its cause and put an end to it. Totally. How confident can you get?"
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp1_f6.htm
a) Life is suffering
The Buddha told us that "Life is Suffering". One who does not understand the Truth of this may think that life is meaningless and become negative and pessimistic. Actually, this theory is commonly misunderstood. People in society and even some Buddhists are trapped in this wrong and gloomy view.
When we encounter phenomena, and have a feeling of dislike, worry or pain, we say that there is "suffering". This should not be generalised to "all life is suffering", because there is also a lot of happiness in life! Noises are disturbing but nice melodies bring happiness. When one is sick, poor, separated from loved ones, one has suffering. But when one is healthy, wealthy, together with one’s family, one is very happy. Suffering and happiness exist in all phenomena. Actually where there is happiness, there will be suffering. They are in contrast with each other. If’ we only say that life is suffering when things do not go according to our wish we are rather foolish.
The Buddha says, "Life is suffering". What does "suffering" mean? The sutras say: "Impermanence therefore suffering". Everything is impermanent and changeable. The Buddha says that life is suffering because it is impermanent and ever-changing. For example, a healthy body cannot last forever. It will gradually become weak, old. sick and die. One who is wealthy cannot maintain one’s wealth forever. Sometimes one may become poor. Power and status do not last as well, one will lose them finally. From this condition of changing and instability, although there is happiness and joy, they are not ever lasting and ultimate. When changes come, suffering arises.
Thus, the Buddha says life is suffering. Suffering means dissatisfaction, impermanence and imperfection. If a practising Buddhist does not understand the real meaning of "suffering" and think that life is not perfect and ultimate, they become negative and pessimistic in their view of life. Those who really understand the teaching of the Buddha will have a totally different view. We should know that the theory of "Life is suffering" taught by the Buddha is to remind us that life is not ultimate and lasting, and hence we should strive towards Buddhahood — a permanent and perfect life.
The lasting effect of this secular "movement" is yet to be seen. It may, and probably will end up being nothing more than fad and end up as a cultural footnote. Cultural evolution rejects far more than it keeps.
But @SpinyNorman is right. The secular move, and we can see this in many spiritual pursuit, is a product of time and place.
Both will change.
An agnostic Buddhist is a secular Buddhist as far as I can tell.
What is the evidence to the contrary? I'm losing track of which side you are defending. Are you implying that secular buddhist are actually shallow hypocrites whose philosophy is actually faith based, dogmatic and unmovable by reason? Or are you defending faith? (i.e. believing something because you want it to be true, essentially independent from the presence or absence of evidence?) Or are you defending the impossibility of knowing anything, which seems to be a big theme of new-agism in general? Or a general hostility to modernism?
If you can provide some evidence to the contrary, on the secular project, those hypothesis, conjectures, ideas and think we as secular practitioners think are true must be discarded.
1st noble true, life is misery. You can just ask people if they are happy or at peace (since peace seems to be what the Buddhist goal is, no so much about being giddy with joy)
2nd - misery is caused by desire. This is testable. Operationalize desire & observe if people are happier/more at peace if they score lower for grasping.
3rd - misery can be ended. Sure, why not? There aren't a lot of results in science that say something is impossible. What is impossible is discussions about post mortem experience. Actually, in the secular worldview, this is easier to demonstrate than in the faith based one, a secular person need only demonstrate that misery ceased in this life, where as in a faith base world, one must demonstrate the impossible-- that misery ended in the after life.
4th - The 8 fold path is efficacious. This is testable.
The whole thing fits with the modernist program. If you don't like the modernist program, you don't have to participate in it. You don't even have to call it Buddhism, nor need you call me a Buddhist, I don't mind. There are 84,000 gate to the dharma, use what works for you. I have a severe impairment in the ability to believe. The challenges of misery are more compelling that the inability to believe two impossible things before breakfast, and at the moment, it appears that the solution to misery doesn't call for it. But who knows, I could be wrong. Maybe the only path out of misery is delusion and believing things that I have no evidence for or that I have evidence that doesn't support it. It's a testable proposition.
I go mostly by the Theravadan texts myself but see a lot of merit in other teachings that seem to expound on the teachings within the Tipitaka.
From what I get out of swearing to take refuge in the sangha, I remain non-sectarian as far as labels are concerned.
1. Rapidly declining attendance at religious services.
2. More and more small churches springing up, some thriving for a while, then falling along the wayside.
3. More and more people saying they are doing their religion "their way".
Cultures change over centuries, not years. They take what works best for the culture/society and the rest is discarded. We can't force the process to our liking and it will take whatever form, needs to be taken to support the parent culture.
Simple as that.
Church attendence always fluctuates.
Peoples opinion of religion is the same.
People will try to do it their way until it becomes clear that it won't work. Religion serves the society and not the individual.
The reason things are going the way you observe is because western society is collapsing right now.
And I even found on an ex-Scientologist forum people who are trying to secularize Scientology. The mind boggles at what a difficult task that is, but it does demonstrate that this is a cross-sectarian and cross-religious movement, not a brief fad.
I'm afraid that you're not taking into account the cat out of the bag concept, but are taking into the account the my version of Buddhism is the only right version of Buddhism concept.
The process of cultural evolution takes it's own sweet time and adapts as circustances warrant.
Of course, a secular movement towards, is out there and trending, but how successful this trend will be has yet to be established.
There are studies that show that Buddhism is growing in the US at an exponentialy greater rate than even Chritianity. Does that mean that Buddhism will become the dominant religion? No. All that means is that it's growing at this time No. I don't really care what form it takes, because I won't live long enough to see these things happen. yes, tha cat's out of the bag. Sooner or later another cat will get out.
When Frank Herbert wrote Dune, one of the religious movements in his version of human space was what he called Zensunni. This was a Zen Buddhism / Sunni Islam hybrid. An unlikely hybrid to be sure, but it could happen (given 10,000 years).
But cultural evolution rarely goes backwards. So a return to an old world version of Buddhism is pretty unlikely. That's the cat out of the bag concept. Personal freedom -- freedom of personal though -- steadily progresses. Yes, there are occasional steps backward, but far more steps forward...and that's the way human history has pretty much evolved.
Progress is a tricky term.
You may continue this back-and-forth if you wish. I'm bored with it.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that's probably not a good idea.
"one romance is replaced by another"