Is there a school in Buddhism that fits this view?

[Aloka]

Although from what I have learned, many Buddhists are agnostic about it, or just view it as symbolism, if I am correct.

The views of those people don't represent the tenets of any Buddhist school. Generally, what modern authors and followers of so-called "Secular Buddhism" etc., are advocating is an appropriation of some aspects of the Buddhadhamma mixed with modern versions of Cārvāka materialist views and epistemology that are flatly rejected by all Buddhist schools.

From what i can figure out that is the case. It seems to me that they repaint western materialism in nice buddhist colors and call it buddhism. It would be fine if they actually called it what it was, buddhist materialism, but they seem to either be unable to make the distinction, think the distinction doesnt matter, or just to want the mystique of buddhism and dont care whether its inaccurate or not.

Would someone be kind enough to name some of these people, please? Apart from I presume Steven Batchelor, I'm not at all sure who you are refering to.

[dude]

...The Nirvana Sutra...

Care to find where this might be, with respect to any portions which can be found in the Nikayas? Probably somewhere in DN 16, but wow it's not ringing a bell...

The English translation on the Access to Insight web page is a highly abridged version, so it's no surprise that a quick review by me failed to find the exact words I referred to. Other published versions are many times longer, and I have reason to doubt that any of the ones I've seen so far are comprehensive.
However, this passage relates to what I was saying :
"If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'"

[mikenz66]

From what i can figure out that is the case. It seems to me that they repaint western materialism in nice buddhist colors and call it buddhism. It would be fine if they actually called it what it was, buddhist materialism, but they seem to either be unable to make the distinction, think the distinction doesnt matter, or just to want the mystique of buddhism and dont care whether its inaccurate or not.

Would someone be kind enough to name some of these people, please? Apart from I presume Steven Batchelor, I'm not at all sure who you are refering to.

http://secularbuddhism.org/about/guiding-principles/


Mike

[Aloka]

Thanks, Mike,

[dude]

Is that a Mahayana Sutra ? I haven't read anything yet about the Buddha recommending punishments for people in the Nikayas.

Have you never, in your reading of the Nikayas, come across examples of punishment similar to that set forth for Channa in the Buddha's final exhortation?

[Aloka]

"Is that a Mahayana Sutra ? I haven't read anything yet about the Buddha recommending punishments for people in the Nikayas".

Have you never, in your reading of the Nikayas, come across examples of punishment similar to that set forth for Channa in the Buddha's final exhortation?

That's not what I'd call 'punishment', it was an example of skilful means, because Channa became an arahant after the Buddha's death. Nor do I understand how it applies to the 'Secular Buddhists' refered to earlier. Does it mean they might become arahants too as a result of the reproaches, punishments and driving away that you mentioned ?

"Cv.XI reports events after the Parinibbana, telling of how news of the brahma-penalty shocked Channa to his senses. As a result, he changed his ways and eventually became an arahant"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html

[Javi]

I don't see what the big deal is, pure land Buddhists worship Buddha and other Bodhisattvas as gods and don't believe enlightenment is possible in this life, a pretty big deviation from the original teachings. There is a lot of room for different interpretations of the teachings I think, and so called 'Secular Buddhists' aren't that different from others, they just reject or remain skeptical/agnostic about supernatural claims. Buddhism has always evolved to fit the culture and times, this is only natural. However I understand that there will always be those who reject this, fearing change. To those people I would remind them that there will always be traditional communities alongside new ones so they need not worry about it too much, no one is forcing you to be a part of it. Also let's remember the parable of the arrow, as long as they take the medicine, who cares what they believe metaphysically? I for one find it amazing that others are looking to the dhamma to learn, even if they just take one thing from it, which in the west is usually meditation. The dhamma is for all, not just those who are prepared to put faith in all of it at once.
You don't approve that they call themselves Buddhists? That's fine, I won't call myself a Buddhist then, neither did the Buddha, those are just labels. I will work to learn as much as I can from the dhamma, that's what matters. I don't understand why that bothers some people so much but ok.

[daverupa]

as long as they take the medicine, who cares what they believe metaphysically?

Well, here's the thing...

So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge...

There are fewer than few in the world who say, 'It would still be the same, it would still be the same,' and they both abandon that view and do not cling to another view.

Applicable to all groups, secular or not. Just about every abhidhamma runs afoul here, too, it seems to me - scholastic Buddhism is on shaky ground from the start, East and West alike. Secular Buddhism has its axes to grind, same as the Mahayana corpus and the Theravada.

[beeblebrox]

There are fewer than few in the world who say, 'It would still be the same, it would still be the same,' and they both abandon that view and do not cling to another view.

To read that out of context I think is to do the sutta quite an injustice... I think that the sutta is worthwhile to read in its entirety, and to contemplate on.

[daverupa]

There are fewer than few in the world who say, 'It would still be the same, it would still be the same,' and they both abandon that view and do not cling to another view.

To read that out of context I think is to do the sutta quite an injustice... I think that the sutta is worthwhile to read in its entirety (and to contemplate).

Agreed!

Where there is a clash, there is dispute. Where there is a dispute, quarreling. Where there is quarreling, annoyance. Where there is annoyance, frustration.' Envisioning for himself clash, dispute, quarreling, annoyance, frustration, he both abandons that view and does not cling to another view. Thus there is the abandoning of these views; thus there is the relinquishing of these views.

[beeblebrox]

This also seems to be good to think about:

Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. From dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' A monk whose mind is thus released does not take sides with anyone, does not dispute with anyone. He words things by means of what is said in the world but without grasping at it.

[dude]

"Is that a Mahayana Sutra ? I haven't read anything yet about the Buddha recommending punishments for people in the Nikayas".

Have you never, in your reading of the Nikayas, come across examples of punishment similar to that set forth for Channa in the Buddha's final exhortation?

That's not what I'd call 'punishment', it was an example of skilful means, because Channa became an arahant after the Buddha's death. Nor do I understand how it applies to the 'Secular Buddhists' refered to earlier. Does it mean they might become arahants too as a result of the reproaches, punishments and driving away that you mentioned ?

"Cv.XI reports events after the Parinibbana, telling of how news of the brahma-penalty shocked Channa to his senses. As a result, he changed his ways and eventually became an arahant"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html

After further reflection, I think I understand your objection now. The word "punishment" carries the connotation of retributive justice, harming an offender in payback for harm having been done to another. It might be more appropriate to call them disciplinary measures, since the intent, and at least in Channa's case the result, is the furtherance of the disciple's self training.

[m0rl0ck]

Would someone be kind enough to name some of these people, please? Apart from I presume Steven Batchelor, I'm not at all sure who you are refering to.

Theyre everywhere, other than batchelor i cant think of any names right away. The podcast page on buddhistgeeks is a good place to see this sort of thing. They start out talking about buddhism and end up talking psychology and brain science.