The Secular Buddhist

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Ted Meissner
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:09 pm

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Ted Meissner »

Good question! I would suggest that cultural context is rooted in the particular social environment of the time. A religious context is rooted in the teachings and practices of the tradition. So, for example, lighting incense may be a cultural manifestation that many practitioners do, or may not -- it is not "critical path" to the dhamma. Right Speech is religious context, but that doesn't mean it's therefore not done as part of secular practice. Secular is a reference to that which we find in this lifetime.
Justsit
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Justsit »

Well, that's an obvious example - the Buddha never taught using incense and he did teach Right Speech.

So does SB consider the teachings on rebirth as a cultural manifestation?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ted Meissner wrote:So, for example, lighting incense may be a cultural manifestation that many practitioners do, or may not -- it is not "critical path" to the dhamma.
It's a good point... and if it's unquestioning assumed to be the 'correct' thing to do, it would never be questioned in the following context....
7. Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.
The critical path is the Noble Eightfold one.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Buckwheat »

I think I could stand behind the following model: a western school of Buddhism that values both tradition and innovation. Tradition by study of Pali suttas and history, upholding the highest ethical standards without relaxing them for "modern convenience". The school would value innovation by an open discussion of how to apply those traditional teachings to the modern world and creating new works of commentary, literature, and art. But the roots in tradition must be firm and legitimate. From a preliminary reading of their site, it seems this is what Secular Buddhism is aiming for, but I'm not sure I completely agree with their level of compromise (seems kind of weak on tradition). I think many on this board can attest that the traditional teachings are rather timeless and do not require much more difficulty than they did 2600 years ago. Food, sex, power.... they are still powerful desires. I can stand back from the "fast pace of modern life" a little bit and it's not difficult except for my own tendancy to jump back in.
Mahaparinibana Sutta wrote: "There is the case where a monk says this: 'In the Blessed One's presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One's presence have I received this... In the presence of a community with well-known leading elders... In a monastery with many learned elders who know the tradition... In the presence of a single elder who knows the tradition have I heard this, in his presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the discourses and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the discourses and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don't stand with the discourses or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is not the word of the Blessed One; this monk has misunderstood it' — and you should reject it. But if... they stand with the discourses and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is the word of the Blessed One; this monk has understood it rightly.'"
Thanissaro Bhikku (Into to Dhammapada) wrote:The true test of the reading — and the resulting translation — is if the reader feels engaged enough by the verses to put their principles into practice and finds that they do indeed lead to the release that the Buddha taught. In the final analysis, nothing else really counts.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by daverupa »

Kare wrote:
Moggalana wrote:It looks at the teachings from a certain point of view. But so does every interpretation. In the case of Secular Buddhism, the lenses through which the teachings are understood are science and sceptical thinking. An orthodox interpretation on the other hand might be influenced by certain metaphysical views of a certain time or specific cultural conditionings.
The different traditional interpretations of Buddhism are influenced by different local cultures - Indian, Chinese, Tibetan, Thai, etc. It only seems fair that Western people should be allowed to do what Asians do: interpret the Dhamma in the light of their own culture. And science and sceptical thinking are among the noblest strands of Western culture. Therefore I think that this Secular Buddhism is just what we need here in the West.
:group:

:thumbsup:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Ted Meissner
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:09 pm

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Ted Meissner »

Justsit wrote: So does SB consider the teachings on rebirth as a cultural manifestation?
We find punna bhava, or "again becoming", in the Pali canon and references to the Buddha's discussions of having been such and such in a previous lifetime. So, from that perspective, it would be considered religious, not cultural.

However, as a skeptic, I would suggest that rebirth is an assertion not in evidence. We have wonderful and inspiring stories about it, the idea may help one's practice, or may not -- for many of us, it does not. Nor is rebirth in the Four Noble Truths, ending dukkha is. Sure, there is the teaching that ending rebirths is what results, that is the result of extinguishing the roots of lobha, dosa, and moha, but there are indications rebirth was not part of the original teaching.

And, honestly, I don't really have much attachment to what anyone said, I care what has been shown by my own experience is effective. Taking the Kalama Sutta at its word! In another arena, science, e=mc2 is valid all by itself, that it was Einstein who said it doesn't have any impact on the veracity of that formula. I respect and admire Einstein and Buddha, and take what they've said as great ideas to test for myself.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Buckwheat »

Einstein wrote:"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
I think the same can be said for religious teachings.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Kim OHara »

Going back a few steps in the hope of going forward ...
daverupa wrote:Thai
Burmese
Sri Lankan
Cambodian
Laotian
Indian
Chinese
Japanese
Vietnamese
Secular(/Western?)
---

All of these are extant iterations of Buddhism. Certainly there are more.
Retro's Buddhism
Kim's
Buckwheat's
Daverupa's
Ted's
Justsit's
etc
daverupa wrote:They all seem to know what to leave in, what to leave out, but there isn't perfect accord here.
Let's be wary of false dichotomies.
My point, of course, is that each person accepts from the teachings what they are ready to accept, and learns from the teachings what they are ready to learn. In this context, 'Secular Buddhism' is a pre-bundled sub-set of what's available, as is, e.g., 'the Goenka tradition'.
No-one has time to learn the whole lot and almost all of us find a benefit in approaching the teachings via one particular tradition rather than getting a confusing mish-mash.
:namaste:
Kim
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The term "punna bhava" - again existing, can be taken as referring to rebirth,
in the literal sense.

However, bhava means personal existence, or existence as a self, and this
kind of existence is an ongoing process for all who are not yet liberated.

So "punna bhava" can be understood in another sense, as the "again existing"
which is taking place every moment.

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Cittasanto »

Moggalana wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Is Secular Buddhism interested in accepting rebirth as a working hypothesis?
I guess one can choose it as working hypothesis if one feels inclined to do so. At the moment, no one can disproof rebirth just as no one can proof it (scientifically). You have three choices: accept it, reject it or put it aside. Whichever one you choose is a personal thing in my opinion. The question is: Does it make a difference? Or would it make a difference if you could be sure it was either true or not? And why do you need to belief in rebirth?
except the fact that Buddhism isn't science, so the two do not need to be in accordance, I agree. except for the point of believing in rebirth, I know from personal experiance it makes a difference.
Cittasanto wrote:or is it only interested in what agrees to its secular preferences?
It looks at the teachings from a certain point of view. But so does every interpretation. In the case of Secular Buddhism, the lenses through which the teachings are understood are science and sceptical thinking. An orthodox interpretation on the other hand might be influenced by certain metaphysical views of a certain time or specific cultural conditionings.
basically you answered this in the last quoted passage it is individualistic Buddhism, cut and paste what you want.
Cittasanto wrote:and how does it know what to leave in and take out?
I don't know, I'm not a scholar but I think that a good place to start would be to look at those elements of the teachings that are shared by all traditions. Teachings like the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and so forth. Those key teachings which survived the various translations and interpretations relatively unchanged are probably more important than teachings whice are modified through cultural conditioning.
So deity puja would be acceptable to all then (Karaniya metta sutta for a theravadan example, The vajrayanins are famous for it (NKT contraversy) and the other Mahayana schools put Boddhisatvas and buddhas up there and have gods they certainly worship.
calling it secular is misleading in my point of view, it is no more a tradition which pushes its own opinion on people, I know from my experience of interdenominational groups that no one actually knows more than the main opinion, which isn't necessarily in-line with the truth, and were shocked at simple things like walking meditation, or The Theravadin Boddhisatta. to put it short it is the theory that 'all is one' in a different guise.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Kim Very good point and straight to it!
vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

The term "punna bhava" - again existing, can be taken as referring to rebirth,
in the literal sense.

However, bhava means personal existence, or existence as a self, and this
kind of existence is an ongoing process for all who are not yet liberated.

So "punna bhava" can be understood in another sense, as the "again existing"
which is taking place every moment.

Regards, Vincent.
yeah the canon has both this lifetime and multiple lifetime models of Dependent Origination.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Justsit
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Justsit »

"If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion." (emphasis mine).
-Bhikku Bodhi, on ATI

More here.

I don't want to turn this into another Great Rebirth Thread, but this quote points to the serious implications of tweaking selected portions of a complete path that has been successful for 2500 years. If we do not consider it successful,
why are we following it at all? (I'm talking the bottom line here, not the cultural accretions).

It sounds to me like SB is more "Secular Humanism Based on Buddhist Principles."

Just my .02.
Thanks.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Cittasanto »

hi Just sit
Justsit wrote:"If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion." (emphasis mine).
-Bhikku Bodhi, on ATI

More here.

I don't want to turn this into another Great Rebirth Thread, but this quote points to the serious implications of tweaking selected portions of a complete path that has been successful for 2500 years. If we do not consider it successful,
why are we following it at all? (I'm talking the bottom line here, not the cultural accretions).

It sounds to me like SB is more "Secular Humanism Based on Buddhist Principles."

Just my .02.
Thanks.
I have the same opinion, I used rebirth as an example of right view, there are no mothers fathers or spontaneously born beings can be interpreted to refer to litteral rebirth and is part of right view, I have seen other interpretations which also include rebirth for the spontaneously born being and duties to parents as an alternative.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Ben »

Hi all

If you wish to discuss rebirth then I suggest you visit the great rebirth debate thread in the Open Dhamma forum.
If members continue with discussing rebirth then the thread will be merged with the great rebirth debate thread.
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: The Secular Buddhist

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Moggalana wrote: So what's Secular Buddhism about?
I think it's just another thicket of views, where the problem is not belief but disbelief. ;)

Spiny
Post Reply