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
Tibetan Buddhism aside, what do you see as make-believe? You mean myths about the Buddha's virgin birth, and that sort of thing? I'd never heard of that until I came here.
I think if you stick to the Buddha's teachings (as best we can determine them), there's no make-believe (other than the 32 realms, AFAIK). It was after the Buddha's death, when a thing called "Buddhism" evolved, that various peoples around Asia added make-believe to it. As I understand it, the Buddha made a concerted efforts to teach reality, and how to come to an understanding of reality. It was after his teachings were turned into an "-ism" that make-believe filtered in.
But the one school of Buddhism I dislike is the...well, it doesn't have a one-word name...so I'll just call it the we Western Buddhists know so much more about real Buddhism than those hicks over in Southeast Asia school of Buddhism
Ive heard statistics that more females are buddhists in the west then males(I've also seen more females then males in most places I've been to), maybe they are all too busy actually practicing dhamma to come on here and debate ?:P
I suspect your observations are correct. Maybe from genetic propensities. I suspect war has something to do with that also. Of course historically, Arabia only allowed one girl child-others were buried, by law-until Mohamet. That was a response to incessant local wars over scarce resources. Men were useful for fighting and women were a handicap that needed protecting-until Mohamet. He envisioned uniting the tribes and taking the fight to outsiders so he needed the population and promoted girls by changing the law.
Strangely, China may have a similar modern history. Right now China law litigates against girl children. Just recently they changed the law so that families could have more children. The boys were needed for potential-envisioned-wars and now girls will be needed to rebuild the population after a couple of wars reduce the population.
A hundred years from now historians may look back on China as we now look back on Arabia. Interesting to be an ant on the classroom wall then. Population studies are fascinating. Fernand Braudle has a lot to say in his book "Structures of Everyday Life."
The spread of Sanscrit was a product of population wanderings from north to India and China. Namaste
dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən) —n: 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.
Now from a definite secularist Buddhist view. Emptiness means lack of inherent existence. That encompasses: beings, gods, cars, and breakfast. That means nothing in there from the beginning-that is what that means. So if there is nothing in there and then that nothing reincarnates you still have nothing in there. No being. That would include Gods and any other divine characters. That is what emptiness means. Now we have the four noble truths. Some say the cause of suffering is desire. I think that is an incomplete understanding. If I desire that you suffer less how is that causing suffering. So, suffering is caused by desire, motivated by self cherishing. Why? Because grasping after the self is delusional. So self is empty. So if a God were a person he-they-would also be delusional. Empty of inherent being. This is the perfection of wisdom. Really.
Now there is a lot of tendency in Christians and Muslims and Hindoos and... to grasp after the self and want a continuation for the self. Priests go along with this and it fits in real well with doing good works, creating good karma and etc. for the benefit of a better life. But this is just more grasping after self. More self now and more self later and that is the cause of suffering. And that suffering is not going to end until we quit it.
The Buddha taught human kindness. Not for the sake of a better life when you reincarnate but for the sake of the person you are kind to. Now that person is also empty so why bother? Well the answer is: The suffering is real suffering. The compassion is real compassion and why is this so? Because awareness is not empty.
Awareness is eternal. Now there may not be a person/god thing but there is awareness.
And if Awareness is eternal then that is pretty divine. If you say well yes and it is that awareness that will reincarnate. Well, OK. But that awareness won't be you and won't have your mental constructs and thinking otherwise, is just more grasping after self and is the cause of suffering-yours. And it makes human kindness harder to come by because we are all balled up with a butter matted bag of self interest and it's hard to look out at the other guy.
I don't want to get into the teachings on karma and hell realms and etc.-not now.
But let me say, it is just fine with me if you don't agree. It's OK for you to feel free to say-you are wrong. I get that. The Prajnaparamita is not read or followed by some Buddhists and that, is also one of the paths the Buddha precipitated. But it's harder to get to the truth-through the delusion-when you are practicing human kindness for the sake of the small self-which is empty.
How can a person experience awareness without an object if they are balled up in wisdom for self. That is not the perfection of wisdom. The self is an object which must be transcended in order to be greatly enlightened.
So. Because awareness is eternal and pervasive, it is divine and that is religion according to the dictionary definition above. But because the person is empty of inherent existence there can be no God which is a person. But, there are those who are Buddhists who don't agree. And that is also a religion.
So the question isn't secular or religion-what is Buddhism. The question is do you understand emptiness and awareness or do you see a divine presence in the form of a person. Either way Buddhism is a religion. Either way Buddhism is also secular wisdom and teachings. May the good be yours, Dennis
No one knows.
Period.
That's not one iota of proof of even one comma of any religious text.
But in all major religions, there is wisdom. How much one accepts from this or that religion varies.
I have my view. If you don't like my view, fine. I don't give a holy shit. If I don't like your view, fine. You shouldn't give a holy shit.
It's up to each individual.
And who knows, maybe each religion has a part of the truth. Or none.
If I'm understanding him right, one can have a belief in "God" of no special religious connection... just as a creator God; and that same someone can follow the basics of Buddhism (precepts, 4NT, 8FP) to the best of their abilities, without any (or very limited amount) of the (Buddhist) religious aspects. So it's possible to be a 'secular Buddhist' and still believe in "god"...
I'm pretty much on the same page as @vinlyn, except I'm not all that into a 'creator' God, really. The Buddhism I practice is pretty much secular. So I call myself a secular Buddhist as well.
What can we do? if we explain to a lay person who goes to the pagoda and asks: "What is my reward for years of devotion? What is Nirvana?". And we tell him or her that attain Nirvana means a true experience of complete emptiness. That person will get into his car and turns right to the corner where the Catholic church is. LOL.
My point is... What is my point? I am lost in this sea of debates.
For example, if I go into a Christian church, do I believe the wine changes to blood and the wafer or bread into flesh? No.
But do I look at the Sermon On The Mount, just as I look at many Suttas from Buddha and say, "Ah, yes, there's wisdom." Yes.
Do I believe that Jesus was the Son of God? No.
Do I believe Jesus and Buddha were both wise teachers? Yes.
Look, in another thread they're talking about prayer wheels. The concept makes me laugh. Although, I think from a cultural standpoint, it's cool. I feel the same way about rosary beads.
Christian heaven and hell. I don't know. Maybe.
Buddhist heaven and hell. I don't know. Maybe.
Christian angels. I don't know. Maybe.
Various Buddhist creatures that are not human. I don't know. Maybe.
Secondly, I've been busy with school and work, so I have not really been able to respond in kind to this crazy labyrinth of a thread. However, since this semester is over, I will respond to a few posts which catch my eye. The idea of God which watches you and judges everything you do is A.) a very westernized concept found in the "Abrahamic" religions (and even then, not all believe in this concept) and B.) is not the only belief in God found in the world. Go up to a Hindu or a Sikh and tell them about that particular view of God and many will look at you as if you're crazy.
I myself believe in God, but it is most certainly not the western concept of monotheism which is prevalent in American culture. I'm a Panentheist, who believe that this greater reality and force we call "God" is both within and beyond our understanding. That it is the ground of being of reality from which the laws of the universe originate. It is impersonal, enternal and unchanging.
Most certainly not the "adult belief in Santa Claus".
I wouldn't call it "make-believe", but there are certainly more Buddhist schools other than Tibetan which have their own fantastical beliefs and stories which might be jarring to westerners.
1.) Amitabha and Pure Land.
2.) The idea of literal karma being the causes of lower rebirths and being a form of punishment as such.
3.) Generally Speaking, Nichirin Buddhists often claiming that their school is the only "true path". And that the Lotus Sutra is the only uncorrupt one in the entire Buddhist canon.
4.) The myths of Buddhas birth, death and everything in between. Which, by the way, were taught in both my High school history classes as well as college humanities classes. I didn't first hear of them by joining this site.
5.) The Bodhisattvas and other otherworldly beings. Including hungry ghosts and devas.
I myself believe in God, but it is most certainly not the western concept of monotheism which is prevalent in American culture. I'm a Panentheist, who believe that this greater reality and force we call "God" is both within and beyond our understanding. That it is the ground of being of reality from which the laws of the universe originate. It is impersonal, enternal and unchanging.
Most certainly not the "adult belief in Santa Claus".
...
I wouldn't call it "make-believe", but there are certainly more Buddhist schools other than Tibetan which have their own fantastical beliefs and stories which might be jarring to westerners.
1.) Amitabha and Pure Land.
2.) The idea of literal karma being the causes of lower rebirths and being a form of punishment as such.
3.) Generally Speaking, Nichirin Buddhists often claiming that their school is the only "true path". And that the Lotus Sutra is the only uncorrupt one in the entire Buddhist canon.
4.) The myths of Buddhas birth, death and everything in between. Which, by the way, were taught in both my High school history classes as well as college humanities classes. I didn't first hear of them by joining this site.
5.) The Bodhisattvas and other otherworldly beings. Including hungry ghosts and devas.
I'm not sure why you say Abrahamic religions are Western in nature since they began in the Middle East.
I like how you delineated some of the make-believe aspects of Buddhism. Thank you.
And by the way, what you started was a rather good discussion.
And this current period of time, all over the modernized world, is turning away from belief-based religious concepts. So, "secular Buddhism" also means "modern Buddhism of this particular time".
No I didn't come up with this, it's pure Stephen Batchelor. He comes up with stuff like this. It rings true with me.
Much of modern Christianity is crippled for refusing to acknowledge the current 'saeculum'. No doubt this is true for all major religions. Another good point Batchelor makes is that for a wisdom tradition to remain alive, it must be given constant nourishment from the present times. We can't only water a tree with the water that cracked it's germ cell open and allowed the first shoot to sprout, it's watered by the rain falling NOW, and the soil fermentations happening NOW.
Respecting and acknowledging the 'saeculum' shouldn't mean we NOW really and truly understand what the Buddha ACTUALLY meant (those poor indigenous, uneducated superstitious East Indians meant well, but . . . ). Buddhism meant what it meant then, and it means what it means now. It is nourished and cultivated by modernity, and though it is the same tree, it might grow into a different shape here in the West.
I am hopelessly unable to give credence to gods (though the demons remind me of certain people) and most of the deal with rebirth, and get quite a bad smell from the idea of 'accumulating merit' though considering what I do for a living, I would be rolling in gold if I could only believe it. SO, I am so grateful for those who've gone against the grain of 'tradition' to cultivate Buddhism that can grow and proliferate IN THIS TIME
Gassho
When the buddha said after he became enlightened 'this dharma is so subtle I don't think people will get it (my translation) so maybe shouldn't even attempt to go there - he was deadly serious. to the extent that we are so deluded that a simple presentation of the truth is regarded as contemptible, because it is so simple - 'our selves are not simple to understand! oh No!). When you read about buddhas students becoming enlightened with a single word or practice - it is because someone who understood the dharma said it with conviction to someone with an open heart and mind.
Hungry ghosts, AFAIK, are exclusive to TB, which I set aside. And there are no Bodhisattvas in Theravada. But even in the Mahayana, I guess I'd always thought of Bodhisattvahood as a goal all of us could strive for, not as a group of supernatural beings. Maybe that was my mistake. And does Buddhism have devas? Aren't those Hindu?
Wow, what college humanities courses did you take? None in my university taught Buddhist mythology, unless there was a comparative religions class. Not even the Tibetan Buddhism course I took taught that! No HS classes dealt with religion, or the history of religion, either. I kind of like the bare-bones Buddhism I learned from my own reading. It works.
Devas are depicted in Theravada imagery in Thailand a lot.
The same applies to Tibetan Buddhism where the native Bon religions was fused with early propogations of the Dharma, infused with Tantra brought by Padmasambhava, Mahamudra brought by Marpa, Chod brought by Machik Labdron, and even stylistic influence from Nestorian Christians (supposedly). Not all of this was strictly Buddhist. All these things were adopted and give TB it's unique cultural flavor.
I think the same thing will happen to Buddhism in the west where the same evolutionary strategy will take place. I think Buddhism will be fused with Christianity, seeing as it's the most common religion in the west, but not before a serious social and cultural collapse. Something will be needed to break up the current social order and allow for some isolation that will allow a social structure to be rebuilt.
THAT will be something to see.
But even aside from that, temples are highly regulated in Thailand by the Supreme Sangha. If they didn't deem all the art in these temples as conforming to Theravada Buddhism, trust me, things would change.
As Vinlyn says the hungry ghosts are in the Theravadan Pali suttas, part of the 33 realms of existence, or is it 31, I dunno lol.
I do see where Chaz is coming from, questioning if the concept of a hungry ghost was not already something that existed in the Brahmin culture at the time and not something brand new introduced by the Buddha, but even so he mentions them and they are part of buddhist cosmology.
Some born in the dharma are extremely arrogant in their certainty, yet they only know they are not enlightened and are just polishing ignorance and some not even that . . .
Some are like gold. Thus have I not herd . . .
. . . and now back to the cycling . . .
Yet you believe in some kind of God and say you're a secular Buddhist?
It still sounds incongruous - as if your skepticism is quite selective.
Sure, it's straight-up 1st year cultural anthropology. The status quo (Christianity) meets a new cultural influence(Buddhism). Conflict arises. The result of the conflict is a new status quo that contains elements of both the old and the new.
Some people call it purposive evolution.
Modern Buddhism is today's Buddhism, in whatever form it takes.
Sometimes, it seems, modern Buddism is used in a way that makes it synonymous with more areligious forms. This follows along the lines that modern/areligious Buddhism is dynamic, vital and changing while religous Buddhism is static, entrenched and unyielding.
I don't thinks that's true.
One area of significant change, in progress, surrounds the ordaining of women into the monastic sangha of Theravedin traditions. Quite a bit of controversy surround this, but the move is on, and won't be reversed.
The role of women in western Buddhist organization has progressed rapidly in the west.
Another area of change can be seen in Tibetan Buddhism. The practice of Ngondro was once reserved for monastics, but in the last 50 years has been offered to lay Buddhists. The liturgy I use for this practice was written by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and so is relatively new. Also in some groups, the course of Ngondro has been relaxed for lay Buddhists. Traditionally, Ngondro is a 4-stage practice with 111,111 repetitions of the stage's practice. At least two lineage holders - the Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and the Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche now instruct their students to do 11,000 repetions of each stage practice. At least once Dzogchen school forgoes Ngondro altogether as a traditional preliminary practice for Dzogchen practice.
These are all modern ideas and changes because they are happening now.
That, or to garner validity of their "version".
And what do you think was added later, and where is the evidence? Have you studied the suttas in enough detail to make an informed opinion?
We go with what works.
Some people call it purposive evolution.
Religions have been coexisting for centuries, sometimes with violent conflicts. So why haven't they fuuuu-uuusssseeeedd???? :dunce:
Christianty and Buddhism (Tibetan) are both excellent examples.
I take wisdom where I find it. If Buddha says something wise, I'm into it. If Jesus says something wise, I'm into it. If Mick Jagger says something wise, I'm into it. If Harold (my barber) says something wise, I'm into. It's just that humans like Buddha and Jesus and a few other people have an overwhelming track record of being wise. So, as I've often said, I'm a Buddhist-Christian (or a Christian Buddhist). The secular part comes in because I'm not going to believe something simply because it's what the majority of people who believe in Buddha or Jesus say so. Rebirth? Open-minded, but I've seen no evidence, yet. Jesus arose...? Open-minded, but I've seen no evidence yet. Etc.
Now, the God-thing. There's a convenience store next to my townhome community. It didn't just spontaneously pop up. It was planned, it was built. My grandfather's cancer didn't just pop up spontaneously. He worked in a factory where there was a lot of particulate matter in the air, including graphite and asbestos...and he smoked heavily. My heart condition wasn't spontaneous. It's genetic. I could go on and on, but spontaneous generation is a long discarded unscientific principle. Therefore, I don't suddenly adopt spontaneous generation as the cause of the universe and life. And remember, 2 of my degrees are in science.
Then we come to you. You're like the child who is given a wooden board with 10 various shapes cut into it -- a star, a circle, a square, a rectangle, etc. Then you're given 10 pieces of wood to put into those shapes. You place the star in the star space. The circle in the circle space. Etc. 9 for 9. But the 10th piece doesn't fit the tenth place (it might be too big or small or not the right shape). The child takes everything back out and starts all over again, because his first thought is, I must have made a mistake. To you, I'm that tenth piece that doesn't fit. And it frustrates you. Even though you want the freedom to be a pure Buddhist and have no one question your right to be that, you don't want me or any other non-aligned person to be what they see as the way of things. It frustrates you.
You say my skepticism is selective. In choosing your religion, weren't you "quite selective"?
You can call yourself whatever you want, too, but that won't mean a whole lot.
When I was a kid, our neighbor had a few cherry trees. Like most crops, all the cherries would become ripe at around the same time. So he and his family would pick all they wanted, and then they'd invited my family to come over and pick. But guess what. When you pick cherries, you don't pick the rotten ones. You only pick the good ones.
And there was a fellow once who walked around the countryside and studied under various teachers, but decided none of them had a cohesive philosophy of life...although I'm sure many of those teachers had some wisdom...that he cherry picked. Let's see. Who was that?
We may accept it, with evidence.
We may reject it, without evidence.
We may hold it in reserve as we await evidence.
Forget past and future 'self reincarnations' what's happening now!!!!!
Ooops I died again! No wait I've been reborn! Damn died in that moment, reborn, died , reborn ….
Rise and shine! Where's your smily face? Come on - let's see a brighter side to living and dying, it what we do, and we all do it really well.