The Secular Buddhist

[tiltbillings]

To me, the argument that secular/skeptical Buddhists are cherry-picking based on arbitrary, subjective preference is somewhat misleading. That may be true for some New Agey types, or for people who have a superficial attraction to Buddhism without having really explored it.

But for the serious-minded "skeptical Buddhist", the selection process is actually fairly systematic. It's shaped by reference to naturalism, empiricism and critical thinking processes (what constitutes a reasoned argument, etc). It's not matter of personal whim, in other words. It's a fairly consistent and coherent set of benchmarks. There are objective criteria set forth for evaluating assertions; it isn't important that one "likes" or "dislikes" a particular teaching.

I was going to say that, more or less, but thanks. You did a better job than I would have.

[Prasadachitta]

To me, the argument that secular/skeptical Buddhists are cherry-picking based on arbitrary, subjective preference is somewhat misleading. That may be true for some New Agey types, or for people who have a superficial attraction to Buddhism without having really explored it.

But for the serious-minded "skeptical Buddhist", the selection process is actually fairly systematic. It's shaped by reference to naturalism, empiricism and critical thinking processes (what constitutes a reasoned argument, etc). It's not matter of personal whim, in other words. It's a fairly consistent and coherent set of benchmarks. There are objective criteria set forth for evaluating assertions; it isn't important that one "likes" or "dislikes" a particular teaching.

I also appreciate this. The distinction made here is an important one.

[Goofaholix]

if there were no rebirth, annihilation, no point in practice, except to make this life a little more bearable, and Enlightenment would be pointless/not possible, as we all end up the same anyway.

That sounds like a point of view informed by an impoverished practise, personally I've found the here and now results of practise have made it well worthwhile and this is after all what Secular Buddhism is pointing to, I don't need hopes for the future to make the present bearable.

[nowheat]

According to the suttas direct knowledge can include the recollection of former lives, the divine eye that can perceive beings in different realms, the divine ear which can hear the same, and so on.

For the person who experiences these, it would be direct knowledge, yes. For others who are hearing someone else talk about them, it is not direct knowledge. I have no experience of former lives in the sense I feel you are meaning it -- which would be a literal sense.

This knowledge was part of the Buddha's awakening (and also that of many arahant disciples). Therefore, there is no good reason for limiting knowledge merely to what can be known through deluded cognitions of ordinary worldlings. As already suggested, the epistemological premise of the following:

I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting knowledge" -- I don't block knowledge that, for example, the Buddha spoke often about rebirth. If I know something, I don't refrain from using it. But someone else's knowledge and experience is not my knowledge and experience. Maybe you can explain what you mean by "limiting knowledge".

Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world.

Where you and I differ on the Buddhadharma is that it is your understanding (and that of many other Buddhists) that the Buddha taught that there is, to use terms from the links you provided, a "transcendental world" -- in whatever way you conceive it to be taught by the Buddha, whether it is simply rebirth as human, or in a variety of forms, limited to this plane of existence, or in heavens and hells populated by devas and petas. You assign to me the attitudes of the Caravakas because I, like them, sets aside things that are thusfar unproven, not part of common human experience -- but it seems you put us both in that basket, separated from the Buddha's doctrine, *because* you believe that the Buddha taught something that goes beyond what can be seen.

The only thing I find in the suttas that goes beyond what I know and see is awakening, nibbana, and that I take on saddha because what is described is consistent with both the rest of the suttas, and with what I see in practice. If you understood the suttas the way I understand them, you would, I guess, call the Buddha an agnostic too. I understand him as using discussions of metaphysics as a language that he understood very well, a language he had in common with a great many people in his day; as very consciously choosing to speak that language without -- as he says -- clinging to it himself. I understand that this is not the traditional view -- further, I understand that it not even "the Secular Buddhist" view -- because there *is* no single Secular Buddhist view.

My only point here is this: As long as you are certain that the Buddha really saw his past lives, really saw the arising and passing away of beings, really had arguments with Mara, really visited Brahma in his heaven, really teleported across rivers -- regardless of where you decide to draw the line between what he actually did and what is mythology -- then you won't see him as an agnostic because he won't have been, in your understanding, uncertain about anything. But from within my understanding -- where I draw the line is different from where you do -- I can see that he acknowledged that time spent thinking about rebirth, gods, other worlds, next lives, and even karma and merit, was not his recommended path because these are more often mistaken understandings than anything like the truth.

[nowheat]

Agnosticism doesn't exactly say "I won't use it" -- there is still testing -- but I won't believe it blindly and use it as if it is proven fact, and cease to question.

and you did say this before, and in other words in that post.

The agnosticism I am talking about is the sort that doesn't believe in unprovable things, and sets aside all those divisive, unresolvable cosmic arguments

from what you have said if you can not prove/know the truth of it, you set it aside, which to me means 'wont use it,' 'leaving it aside.'

Apparently my definition of "set aside" and yours are somewhat different. By "set aside" I don't mean "put away never to be examined". When reading suttas that I don't understand, I set them aside, too, and pick them up again for later consideration. I don't debate my understanding of them with others because I don't understand them so I can't debate the validity of my take on them, because I don't have a take on them -- but I will always listen to others' views about them, since they may give me the key I need to understand. I don't act on what's in a sutta that is as yet unclear to me, or make it part of my practice, because I can't, really. So I set it aside.

I am an agnostic in that sense.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Faith, in most people's definition of it, requires that one go beyond questioning. I am never beyond questioning. Saddha, as I understand it, is not blind faith.

that would be blind faith; faith in Buddhist definition, to my understanding, is putting the claim to the test until it is proven one way or the other, reflecting before, during, and after for its usefulness to the path.

Because one cannot prove a negative (if the metaphysical claims are actually untrue) one will spend a lot of energy continuing to test for something not in evidence. At a certain point it would seem wiser to "set aside" until further evidence turns up rather than actively seeking something that has not shown up for decades (when the rest of one's practice is still improving over that course of time). Where a person draws that line would be up to the individual I suppose.

But the reason I set aside the Buddhist metaphysical claims is not just because I don't have evidence in my life for them. It is because when I read the suttas, I find the Buddha gently suggesting that seeking after metaphysics when there is no evidence is not skillful.

"Ted" is Ted Meissner, who posted earlier in the thread -- he is the fellow whose site and podcasts we are discussing in this thread.

one post, and one of a list of contributors, is this another hardcore movement, or a group?
I am discussing secular Buddhism, not one person!

I was making a distinction between Ted's opinions and mine; we are two individuals who are not in 100% accord on everything. If you want to discuss Secular Buddhism with the understanding that it is a unified movement, I hope you'll let me know when you find that unified movement. We are many individuals.

Like I said earlier you seam to be confusing terms up. I agree with your definition of agnostic, I disagree with your definition of faith, particularly in this context.
Faith requires keeping something said to be useful unless it can be shown to be completely useless, if it was useful in certain circumstances, but not in others, then lets keep it around, but if it is never useful then keeping it around would be blind ignorance.

If something is said to be useful, but I find it not only not useful, but counterproductive, does your definition of faith require that I use it because the people who tell me it is useful often give good advice? If the evidence of my own experience denies its usefulness at every point, I think it is blind faith to act as if it is true. When it is counterproductive, and dismissed by a source I trust even more, it becomes foolish.

It seems to me the sticking point in our conversation here is *only* that I say that I don't have faith in Buddhist metaphysical claims and you do.

I feel sure we actually agree about what saddha is -- it is not blind faith -- it is faith based on the sense that we have been told the truth by this source often enough to believe that the things we have been told, that have not yet been seen by us, will be proven accurate. I think we both practice that faith -- about awakening, for example.

[nowheat]

from what you have said if you can not prove/know the truth of it, you set it aside, which to me means 'wont use it,' 'leaving it aside.'

Just curious, how does one "use" rebirth?

Just taking that as an example because it tends to be the first sticking point in these kinds of discussions.

Venturing into dangerous territory here, as Cittasanto pointed out, but I'll carefully refrain from using that r-word.

I would say one "uses" any part of a doctrine -- or we could call it a view (in this case we're talking about something that might fall under "right view", right?) as a lens through which to see and understand the world and what's happening in it, as a tool to interpret our experience.

Further, one might "use" -- for example -- the Christian Hell as a motivational tool?

[Buckwheat]

It seems to me the most important use of rebirth is to create a sense of urgency such that it really does matter how much ones practice develops before death because good practice increases the odds of a good rebirth and vice versa. Also it eliminates suicide as a way out of suffering. That is just my own limited understanding. And looking backwards, there is appreciation and gratitude for previous good karma to be reborn in the human realm and a desire to not waste that previous right effort.

It took a lot of work to get here and I don' want to piss that away.

It may be possible to cultivate similar attitudes without rebirth,but I'm not sure if that would hold the same power to improve practice. Maybe... what do I know? "I'm still a fool" is the only thing I know for sure.

[Buckwheat]

Nowheat,
Thank you for your respose to my post and the others. I can respect your line of thinking. I think over the last year or two I have developed a stronger trust in the Buddha so that I am leaning toward acceptance of some things that I have yet to experience for myself. I try to recognize that I am "out on a limb" and not go too far while at the same time using that extended faith to strengthen my practice in ways that seem verifyably beneficial. You seem a little more skeptical, but I wouldn't ask you to change that.

It is interesting the Buddha discusses a couple sources of misunderstanding the dhamma. One is to seek inferences in passages which are literally true and another is to take literally things that should be used for inferring the truth. I think until at least stream entry none of us can be 100% sure which passages fall into which categories. Did Buddha literally battle a being called Mara or is that personification of the inner struggle with delusion and lust? I do not know about that but I do respect your approach.

[Nyana]

For the person who experiences these, it would be direct knowledge, yes. For others who are hearing someone else talk about them, it is not direct knowledge. I have no experience of former lives in the sense I feel you are meaning it -- which would be a literal sense.

Yeah, well, to quote Michael Rooker, "This is Louisiana, chief! I mean, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mama told you so."

I'm not sure what you mean by "limiting knowledge" -- I don't block knowledge that, for example, the Buddha spoke often about rebirth. If I know something, I don't refrain from using it. But someone else's knowledge and experience is not my knowledge and experience. Maybe you can explain what you mean by "limiting knowledge".

Here we're talking about what constitutes valid sources of knowledge (pramāṇa). All Indian philosophical schools accept direct perception (pratyakṣa) and inference (anumāna) as valid sources of knowledge. Scripture (āgama) and verbal testimony (śabda) can be added to inferential knowledge, provided that one accepts the authority of of the scriptural source, author, or speaker.

In the context of the Pāli Tipiṭaka (and related collections preserved in other languages), there is simply too much scriptural material that's been preserved which is beyond the range of consensual, empirical experience of the average human being. In addition, there are a vast number of anecdotal sources (i.e. śabda) from every culture and historical period that speak of certain similar non-ordinary phenomenological experiences that result in significant cognitive and therapeutic changes in the individual. These are often highly valued changes resulting in various degrees of liberation and freedom, as well as other types of direct perception of non-ordinary phenomena. Personally, I consider these sources (āgama & śabda) compelling enough to keep an open mind regarding what I do not (yet) know via direct perception.

[Sanghamitta]

Good for you.
Open minds are of course defined by being open all round.
That being the case I will leave judging the route by which other people arrive at empirical knowledge...
I see no evidence that holding either belief or disbelief results in saddha per se.
Over the years I have seen many who were certain, crash and burn and many who were/are sceptical are quietly flourishing in Dhamma without radically altering their public credo..
Its almost as though the mind and the heart do not correlate for a time.
Some folk become Dhamma scholars, some become faux peasants adopting folk belief without reserve. .
It all comes out in the wash.

[Cittasanto]

if there were no rebirth, annihilation, no point in practice, except to make this life a little more bearable, and Enlightenment would be pointless/not possible, as we all end up the same anyway.

That sounds like a point of view informed by an impoverished practise, personally I've found the here and now results of practise have made it well worthwhile and this is after all what Secular Buddhism is pointing to, I don't need hopes for the future to make the present bearable.

You asked, I answered, doesn't mean it has any relation to my practice.

one could argue it is based on a very full practice, one where the faculty/strength of saddha is strong, rather than an impoverished practice where faith is weak?

[Cittasanto]

Apparently my definition of "set aside" and yours are somewhat different. By "set aside" I don't mean "put away never to be examined". When reading suttas that I don't understand, I set them aside, too, and pick them up again for later consideration. I don't debate my understanding of them with others because I don't understand them so I can't debate the validity of my take on them, because I don't have a take on them -- but I will always listen to others' views about them, since they may give me the key I need to understand. I don't act on what's in a sutta that is as yet unclear to me, or make it part of my practice, because I can't, really. So I set it aside.

I am an agnostic in that sense.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

I see what you mean now.
more like putting something on a todo list and leaving it undone untill other things are in place?
one doesn't start building the roof until the rest of the Building is finished, but the structures that make the roof may of already been built (such as the A-frames).

This I would agree with, and do myself.

Because one cannot prove a negative (if the metaphysical claims are actually untrue) one will spend a lot of energy continuing to test for something not in evidence. At a certain point it would seem wiser to "set aside" until further evidence turns up rather than actively seeking something that has not shown up for decades (when the rest of one's practice is still improving over that course of time). Where a person draws that line would be up to the individual I suppose.

But the reason I set aside the Buddhist metaphysical claims is not just because I don't have evidence in my life for them. It is because when I read the suttas, I find the Buddha gently suggesting that seeking after metaphysics when there is no evidence is not skillful.

This is more like proving "All is suffering" compared to "all is unsatisfactory," and a reason people are put off by the actual teaching in some cases/at certain stages. something, like an understanding of a text at a very gross level, can have no evidence so best left until later.

I think the Dhammapada verse 242 (? the one which says the taint of a woman is infidelity and there are other occurrences although rare, here I am only referring to the dhammapada verse) is a good example here, looking at it from the point of view of a general statement, shines a poor light from a modern perspective on the Buddha, and I believe an unfair one, but looking at the cultural ideas on women and sex at the time, as shown in the clarifications of the third precept on sexual misconduct, and the origin story in this case, it paints a different picture, it is a friend comforting a friend, who hasn't said "you know what women are like", or "you know what men are like" to a friend who has/is going through a hard patch in a relationship?

I was making a distinction between Ted's opinions and mine; we are two individuals who are not in 100% accord on everything. If you want to discuss Secular Buddhism with the understanding that it is a unified movement, I hope you'll let me know when you find that unified movement. We are many individuals.

yes, it is right here in my bag of wonder
I remember the use of traditional baggage referring to the cultural add ons, and even interpretations

If something is said to be useful, but I find it not only not useful, but counterproductive, does your definition of faith require that I use it because the people who tell me it is useful often give good advice? If the evidence of my own experience denies its usefulness at every point, I think it is blind faith to act as if it is true. When it is counterproductive, and dismissed by a source I trust even more, it becomes foolish.

I think this has been answered above in this post.
but yes I agree

It seems to me the sticking point in our conversation here is *only* that I say that I don't have faith in Buddhist metaphysical claims and you do.

I feel sure we actually agree about what saddha is -- it is not blind faith -- it is faith based on the sense that we have been told the truth by this source often enough to believe that the things we have been told, that have not yet been seen by us, will be proven accurate. I think we both practice that faith -- about awakening, for example.

I don't think it is quite that, Like I said earlier about confused definitions, your dictionary definition of agnostic, and experiential definition didn't match and seamed to merge faith into it, so I think it is more about how we define, rather than what we are talking about. but this may just be saying the same from a different angle.

take rebirth as an example, The Sutta and Abhidhamma have different models of rebirth a three life and one life model respectively (although the three life is also in the Abhidhamma to a lesser degree, I would agree that the abhidhamma is a later collection, historically, but believe that this model wouldn't of been added from thin air, and it has shown a use in practice that gives me faith that the Abhidhamma is reliable as what the Buddha taught, it was just collected together later, but I am quite open to it not being his words historically, in this regard it doesn't matter to me personally, as it has shown itself to be true.

[Nyana]

Over the years I have seen many who were certain, crash and burn and many who were/are sceptical are quietly flourishing in Dhamma without radically altering their public credo..
Its almost as though the mind and the heart do not correlate for a time.

Yes, the head and the heart each develop at their own pace. And there's no set formula -- this development is unique to each individual. Optimally, any combination of faith and skeptical inquiry that leads to resiliency can be useful to help see one through both the highs and the lows.

[Spiny O'Norman]

That's one reason SB tends to focus on practice based on what can actually be demonstrated in the natural world -- the conjecturing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or what literal rebirth one might take, that's the thicket of views, not the reasonable inquiry into what can be shown as cause and effect.

Though SB freely admits cherry picking from the suttas, ie rejecting the bits that don't fit into his personal belief system. In other words secular Buddhism is still very much tied into the whole belief/disbelief thing.

Spiny

And how different is that from the sutta-only-ists, for example? In a real way, don't we all "cherry pick" from the suttas, looking for those bits that "speak" to us?

Speaking personally I try to keep an open mind when reading the suttas - though I find it isn't easy. My point was that rejecting those parts of the suttas that don't fit our current personal belief system can be a hindrance to understanding the teachings.

Spiny

[Spiny O'Norman]

"Cherry picking the suttas" has nothing to do with belief or disbelief...

I disagree. It seems to me that cherry picking is all about our personal beliefs, preconceptions and assumptions.

Spiny