kirk5a wrote:daverupa wrote: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.