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
1. Existence is about as good as it gets - without existing.
2. Stuff happens.
3. Better Stuff is available.
4. Do good *Stuff.
. . . Maybe it needs some work . . . anyway I'm off for a spot of persecuting . . .
*Stuff: see 8 fold commandments
Secular Buddhism is defining enlightenment either as a direction you move in or some achievable goal, your choice, there isn't a well developed orthodoxy (and can't be!). Secularizing a religion entails dropping the impossible. It's like absolute zero degrees, you can get close to it, but those molecules are always bouncing around. If enlightenment means infinitely good, well, we can only move in that direction and the end of suffering is a linguistic flourish, like someone making their room completely clean (is that religion or just an expression of intent to clean a lot?)
In the Zen tradition, people meditate until they experience satori & that counts as enlightenment. It's self reported, so this is scientifically true in the same way that a survey of people with depression self report that they feel better after a treatment. Mathematicians and physics majors like to call psychology and sociology junk science because the objectives are less measurable, less provable, but mostly that is just posturing. Science works, even when you have to take into account models with self reported data, fuzzy numbers, probabilities and other complications.
I haven't seen much about quantification in Buddhism outside of ancient Chinese Buddhism that attempted to quantify merit. Maybe someone should do a quantified-self experiment for Buddhism, I should check the buddhist geeks community and see if it's already been done.
As for me, my reading implies that enlightenment is that "ah ha!" moment when you get the gist of how no-self works and some basic implications of it. So by that criteria, most people on the board are enlightened. The magic comes back only when we expect there to be magic after a metaphysical insight-- like immortality, the ability to adhere perfectly and effortlessly to an ethical system, and jump tall buildings in a single bound. Or at least fly and walk on water (both attributed in various stories to enlightened beings).
Secular Buddhism would not entail "hard" enlightenment, the one that takes kalpas of years, and where towards the end you become a superhuman being (Bodhisattva) with superpowers and maybe a whole land.
re: the word secular
You are free to use words any way you want to. If you use a word in a way enough, you might sway a community and they will invent new words to replace the word you dislodged. The fact that there are two (radically?) different approaches to Buddhism won't change, and they both deserve a name. And the name doesn't even have to be a good name. Many technical jargon words in science are made of root words that were based on earlier misunderstandings. Sort of the the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn't holy, roman, nor an empire. But historians and geographers can still talk about the Holy Roman Empire and not be confused about the topic.
that pretty much goes against what I know of as the Buddha's teachings in the pali cannon, so I would not say that only seculars accept their experience. Also.. are you saying secular people don't question their experiences ?:P
With satiusfaction comes our clinging to it. We cling out of fear that our satisfaction will turn to dissatisfaction. Our Happiness will turn to sadness and so on.
You deny your own humanity ;-)
Religious thought has been a part of the human psyche for hundreds of thousands of years. Maybe longer.
To eschew religious thinking simply because it's religious is to deny something that actually helps to make you human and that's sad.
And to a certain extent to no cling, something humans do, is equally inhuman, but in that case it can harm us karmically.
However, to deny ourselves something because it's we think it's clinging, is merely clinging to something else.
Because of emptiness, things are so much more meaningful.
I don't know where being secular begins and being religious ends...
The mundane is absolutely divine and the divine is so mundane.
Here is a link to a definition of secular for you.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular
You will NEVER understand dependent origination without meditating.
mark this as one of the few times I will post TNH
last 1/4 of this little talk on Nirvana.
"when you get in touch with reality, you no longer have views, you have wisdom"
Just seeing things as they really are, whether that matches up with our beliefs and perspectives.. again sounds like bliss to me.
Are you sure that worries are needed to love someone? I don't think that is true. If you are overly worried about a loved one Mudita can help you see the beauty of life and death.
I think chaz is saying that you can make demons out of gods if you have the wrong view that denying all things will provide happiness. In reality we don't have to give up the pleasure, we just have to deal with craving and all the rest.
If you give up craving you'll just be craving something else? :dunce:
It is kind of true. Anger is a one headed dragon. You see your anger and then just cut it with the part of you that is at peace and observing the anger. Craving is like a multi-headed hydra. You cut off drinking, then it is eating. You give up eating, and then you want to funk out your neighbors. The trick to dealing with craving is to be mindful of the craving and just let it be. Sit with it's negative state and just keep sitting with the lack of the pleasure. But don't knock yourself for indulging just keep sitting with and having compassion.
That's how to deal with craving. So you will be craving all manner of things. But you just meet your experience of the craving with your heart of hearts. The heart (citta) is indestructible and craving cannot harm it it just confuses you.
You are stuck in first gear.
Here is a pretty good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Wheel-Truth-Commentary-Teaching/dp/159030764X
If you had some experience, you might not have to have faith that you are right.
http://secularbuddhistassociation.com/about/guiding-principles/
Understanding
Secular Buddhism understands Siddhattha Gotama as a human being, having lived within the cultural context of his time.
Secular Buddhism understands the four noble truths as an accurate, empirical description of the experience of living, and as a methodology of understanding, social behavior, and mental development.
Secular Buddhism understands the community of practitioners as integral to the positive development of society.
One thing we can be sure of, denying an act of greed does not make you not greedy.
What, do you think that simply denying an act of greed somehow makes you not greedy?
Even liars can tell the truth. Does one act of truthfulness make a liar something else?
You need to get out more.
secular buddhism means the same as agnostic buddhism: what does that mean? there is no god in buddhism? - guess what, buddhists don't worship a god duuuhhhhh; they deal with the human condition - when did god enter the discussion
Smite me - go on.
Oh you can't because you are too busy arguing about your religious beliefs?
Where did that boil on my nose come from?