The Secular Buddhist

[Sanghamitta]

Ask whoever wrote it.

If, as you suggest, not reinforcing wrong views matters, if that's not "irrelevant" then it seems the "secular Buddhist" has something to consider.

Having made it plain ( to the best of my ability ) that I think that Dhamma is not found by discursive thought, whether "secular " or "religious ", you are inviting me to explore that view by means of discursive thought...?
Sorry..

[kirk5a]

This statement and what follows it dares to discuss the real elephant in the room of presumptive traditional Buddhism , that of the myth of rebirth.

I think it goes beyond questioning. To me it looks like the author thinks anatta proves there can be no rebirth.

[daverupa]

This statement and what follows it dares to discuss the real elephant in the room of presumptive traditional Buddhism , that of the myth of rebirth.

I think it goes beyond questioning. To me it looks like the author thinks anatta proves there can be no rebirth.

It's not the case that everyone will be using the term "rebirth" in the same way, and this will lead to confusion and vexation. It's possible to accept or reject the explanation given in the Milindapañha (na ca so na ca añño), or to accept or reject the various Upanisadic visions of samsara, but the key aspect for a secular Buddhist seems to be that this question lies beyond the accepted epistemological range within which the Dhamma is to be practiced.

The secular idea of "Creeping Brahmanism" is implicated here, and it might do to give it a thread of its own.

[kirk5a]

the key aspect for a secular Buddhist seems to be that this question lies beyond the accepted epistemological range within which the Dhamma is to be practiced.

But as that secular Buddhist demonstrates, she does not, in fact, regard it as "beyond the accepted epistemological range." She thinks "rebirth cannot be observed" (by her) AND "it isn't possible, anyhow" (owing to various ruminations concerning neurology, a misapprehension of anttta, etc.)

[ancientbuddhism]

This statement and what follows it dares to discuss the real elephant in the room of presumptive traditional Buddhism , that of the myth of rebirth.

I think it goes beyond questioning. To me it looks like the author thinks anatta proves there can be no rebirth.

It's not the case that everyone will be using the term "rebirth" in the same way, and this will lead to confusion and vexation. It's possible to accept or reject the explanation given in the Milindapañha (na ca so na ca añño), or to accept or reject the various Upanisadic visions of samsara, but the key aspect for a secular Buddhist seems to be that this question lies beyond the accepted epistemological range within which the Dhamma is to be practiced.

The secular idea of "Creeping Brahmanism" is implicated here, and it might do to give it a thread of its own.

Good post, and with regard to Creeping Brahmanism I have crossed some lines implying this here on DW that I usually choose not to because it confronts popular teachers.

Now I must be off to write more of my own Creeping Annihilationism.

[ancientbuddhism]

the key aspect for a secular Buddhist seems to be that this question lies beyond the accepted epistemological range within which the Dhamma is to be practiced.

But as that secular Buddhist demonstrates, she does not, in fact, regard it as "beyond the accepted epistemological range." She thinks "rebirth cannot be observed" (by her) AND "it isn't possible, anyhow" (owing to various ruminations concerning neurology, a misapprehension of anttta, etc.)

The Buddha's caution against making assumptions beyond ones own epistemological range are so frequent I won't bother quoting them.

[daverupa]

the key aspect for a secular Buddhist seems to be that this question lies beyond the accepted epistemological range within which the Dhamma is to be practiced.

But as that secular Buddhist demonstrates, she does not, in fact, regard it as "beyond the accepted epistemological range." She thinks "rebirth cannot be observed" (by her) AND "it isn't possible, anyhow" (owing to various ruminations concerning neurology, a misapprehension of anttta, etc.)

And yet she writes, "I see no reason to consider anything after death, since I can not test and explore that situation."

This seems to echo throughout secular thought, alongside various strong claims which may be unwarranted - but, granting that such strong claims about post-mortem states are unwarranted, views both against and for "rebirth" (however formulated) are positions without support, ones which are consistently dealt with along skeptical lines within secular Buddhism. Furthermore, ongoing investigation into the heterogeneity of the SuttaVinaya (to say nothing of the Tipitaka, or the Canon) is getting reflected through a growing awareness among secular Buddhists of the historical progression of the received texts, including those texts which might postdate the Buddha, those which might be misunderstood by the early commentators, and so forth.

Accepting the textual corpus in toto as being homogenous & infallible is not tenable, on this approach, and one of the casualties of this seems to be the growing impossibility of a casual acceptance of national traditions in place of text and practice.

[kirk5a]

And yet she writes, "I see no reason to consider anything after death, since I can not test and explore that situation."

Well she's just saying something self-contradictory. She just did consider it and come to a conclusion regarding it. That approach is one thing that seems to echo throughout "secular thought," so it seems to me. Purported agnosticism is actually just a smokescreen for positions against. Then, let's see what we can weed out of the teachings owing to historical reasoning, cultural biases, misinterpretation and so forth....

there can be no such thing as rebirth, or reincarnation after death, for there is no one to be reborn. Consciousness, a function of the brain, and the manufacturer of the feeling of self, dies with the death of the body.

[daverupa]

Well she's just... Purported agnosticism is actually just a smokescreen... let's see what we can weed out of the teachings...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I find in such discussions it's relevant to consider what someone considers themselves to be 'first and foremost', because this invariably shapes how 'secondary interests' are framed.

The classic situation we see on forums a lot is 'Buddhism' and 'Vegetarian'. If some considers themselves 'Vegetarian' first and foremost, this then shapes their application of Buddhism. If there is any conflict or tension, they steer towards that which they align themselves with 'first and foremost'. In other words, their Buddhism has to fit into the Vegetarianism. If someone's preferences were altered, and they were 'Buddhist' first and foremost then their Vegetarianism would have to fit into their Buddhism.

None of this is essentially right or wrong, but it's how people prioritise the relative importance of their chosen belief systems (incl. religious, philosophical, scientific, political etc.) and how they go about integrating them into a "path" (eightfold or otherwise).

Metta,
Retro.

[Kim OHara]

... ongoing investigation into the heterogeneity of the SuttaVinaya (to say nothing of the Tipitaka, or the Canon) is getting reflected through a growing awareness among secular Buddhists of the historical progression of the received texts, including those texts which might postdate the Buddha, those which might be misunderstood by the early commentators, and so forth.
Accepting the textual corpus in toto as being homogenous & infallible is not tenable, on this approach, and one of the casualties of this seems to be the growing impossibility of a casual acceptance of national traditions in place of text and practice.

In fact, accepting the whole textual corpus as being "homogenous & infallible" has to be a faith-based acceptance because it doesn't stand up to critical examination. And the same applies to accepting any of the national traditions as being homogenous & infallible.
Some people - most people, in fact - are perfectly happy not to have to think about doctrine, and that's absolutely fine: they will walk the path under the guidance of their teachers, and they will make progress along it. But the others, the questioners, are likely to practise something like Secular Buddhism or Skeptical Buddhism, whether they discover it for themselves or are lucky enough to find a group of like-minded people who have already done some of the work for them.


Kim

[Goofaholix]

I find in such discussions it's relevant to consider what someone considers themselves to be 'first and foremost', because this invariably shapes how 'secondary interests' are framed.

The classic situation we see on forums a lot is 'Buddhism' and 'Vegetarian'. If some considers themselves 'Vegetarian' first and foremost, this then shapes their application of Buddhism. If there is any conflict or tension, they steer towards that which they align themselves with 'first and foremost'. In other words, their Buddhism has to fit into the Vegetarianism. If someone's preferences were altered, and they were 'Buddhist' first and foremost then their Vegetarianism would have to fit into their Buddhism.

None of this is essentially right or wrong, but it's how people prioritise the relative importance of their chosen belief systems (incl. religious, philosophical, scientific, political etc.) and how they go about integrating them into a "path" (eightfold or otherwise).

This is a good point.

I asked myself though what to secular Buddhists consider themselves first and foremost; skeptics, scientific, Nikayan Buddhists, humanists, materialists... ?

I think the answer is most secular Buddhists consider themselves Meditators first and foremost, or more specifically Insight Meditators.

Personally if I ever had to choose between Buddhist religion and Insight meditaion I'd choose the latter. having said that I don't think you can really have one without the other and be fully following the eightfold path.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Personally if I ever had to choose between Buddhist religion and Insight meditaion I'd choose the latter.

For me, the "primary priority" is understanding and adhering to Buddhavacana, whilst other things like being an insight meditator, Theravadin, Buddhist etc. are secondary to that.... which, if nothing else, goes to show that there is similar diversity and prioritisation going on in the domain of Theravada!



Metta,
Retro.

[Buckwheat]

My top priority is the cessation of suffering. Although, I'm ignorant and stubborn so this is going to be a long ride.

[Goofaholix]

For me, the "primary priority" is understand and adhering to Buddhavacana, whilst other things like being an insight meditator, Theravadin, Buddhist etc. are secondary to that.... which, if nothing else, goes to show that there is similar diversity and prioritisation going on in the domain of Theravada!

I think many secular Buddhists believe their interpretation is closer to Buddhavacana, and many religious Buddhists believe their interpretation is Buddhavacana.

So your answer is a bit like when asked "which version of events do you believe is true?" and you reply "the true one".

I'm guessing though what you mean is that your "primary priority" is a literal interpretation of the texts of the Pali Canon that are generally considered reliable.