Coming back to this discussion after a good night's sleep (clear conscience and all that ) I think Buckwheat's earlier suggestion - that it would be nice to see some scientific studies on the subject. You are all arguing from what you have seen around you (as I was, to be fair) and the discussion can go no further without a broader view.
I'm curious, though, about the views of those who believe that religion does not make people better people. What do you think it does for people? And why are you religious (as I think you must be, hanging out on DW as you do) if you don't see that benefit?
Kim
Secular view - The Future of Religion
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Mental support, mental guidelines, comfort, refuge, something to focus on/cling to (thoughts, concepts) which is "broader" in scope than the things of daily life, alleged meaning of life and death ...Kim O'Hara wrote:I'm curious, though, about the views of those who believe that religion does not make people better people. What do you think it does for people?
I cannot confirm your assumption. Actually I find that the the teachings of the Buddha inspire to investigate into the nature of religious thought and its causes and are helpful for doing so. I do not reject religion. No, I think that religion is an optional aspect of being human and conditioned by the fact that humans can be (self-)conscious.Kim O'Hara wrote: And why are you religious ... ?
Kind regards
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
One reason people support religion is peer pressure. Social acceptance is very powerful.Kim O'Hara wrote:What do you think it does for people?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
I don't hold a view theat religion "does" or "does not" make people better. I was just questioning the idea that we need religion because the alternative was a society without morals.Kim O'Hara wrote: I'm curious, though, about the views of those who believe that religion does not make people better people.
This touches again why I am not happy with the term "Secular Buddhism" I am fully in favor of modern society being strongly secular and feel that it is no longer appropriate for religious institutions to have any great input in the guiding of a modern society. However at the same time I don't think religions need to be overly stripped down. Within the Theravada, I personally find many of the traditions deeply moving and beautiful.
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Other than Stephen Batchelor's lack of confidence in Karma as a type of conditionality I dont think he says anything out of line with what he calls "religious" Buddhism. He says "“Enlightenment,” therefore – though I prefer the term “awakening” – is not a mystical insight into the true nature of mind or reality" bu he also says "flourishing first stirs in that clear, bright, empty space where neurotic self-centredness realizes that it has no ground to stand on at all" Which is what I would call a "mystical insight into the true nature of mind or reality".
Take care
Prasadachitta
Take care
Prasadachitta
Last edited by Prasadachitta on Wed May 16, 2012 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
That's pretty huge. (I know very little about Mr. Batchelor's views.)Prasadachitta wrote:Other than Stephen Batchelor's lack of confidence in the Karma as a type of conditionality...
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi Buckwheat,Buckwheat wrote:That's pretty huge. (I know very little about Mr. Batchelor's views.)Prasadachitta wrote:Other than Stephen Batchelor's lack of confidence in the Karma as a type of conditionality...
I agree that it is very significant. What Im saying is that his tone seams to indicate that everything else he is saying is somehow indicative of what he is calling "secular Buddhism". Really he is just describing Buddhism but adding a lack of confidence in the efficacy of Kamma and calling it "secular". Its as if he thinks that he has figured out what Buddhism should be and then goes about saying what most Buddhists would agree it already is except for that one single point. A point which I agree is no small issue. It seems a bit strange to me.
Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi, Mr Man,Mr Man wrote:I don't hold a view theat religion "does" or "does not" make people better. I was just questioning the idea that we need religion because the alternative was a society without morals.Kim O'Hara wrote: I'm curious, though, about the views of those who believe that religion does not make people better people.
This touches again why I am not happy with the term "Secular Buddhism" I am fully in favor of modern society being strongly secular and feel that it is no longer appropriate for religious institutions to have any great input in the guiding of a modern society. However at the same time I don't think religions need to be overly stripped down. Within the Theravada, I personally find many of the traditions deeply moving and beautiful.
You broaden the debate enormously with the words I have emphasised above.
So far we have been talking about individual religious attitudes and practices. Every member of a society can be religious (whatever than means to him/her) without the society as a whole being religious or guided by religion. Like you, I prefer society to stay out of religion. (I also prefer religions to stay out of politics.)
If there is a separation between religion and society, everyone can choose and practice their own religion. IMO, the alternative is no longer possible.
But I think it's a separate topic.
Kim
P.S.: Just came across this blog post http://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_ ... dness.html which presents two more viewpoints, of Alain de Botton and a Daoist, on secular vs religious societies. It's still a bit OT but I figured soem people here may be interested ...
Kim
Last edited by Kim OHara on Wed May 16, 2012 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
I do think this is the root point, so as to the strangeness of it, let me try to put it in an encompassing way:Prasadachitta wrote:Really he is just describing Buddhism but adding a lack of confidence in the efficacy of Kamma and calling it "secular". ... It seems a bit strange to me.
The Dhamma is taken as being in an epistemological category, and not a metaphysical one, a distinction made in Western philosophy. Now, metaphysical claims have usually been associated with God/gods in Western philosophy (whence the idea 'secular' being deprived of such), and god realms and hell realms - essential to an explication of kamma, on the traditional view - fall into this category by definition. Therefore, gods and realms must have a symbolic interpretation, else be later interpolations, else be wholly tangential, e.g. ad infinitum.
On this view, to say otherwise opens the door to competing metaphysical claims, which would eliminate the premise that the Dhamma has unique epistemological veracity. The Kalama Sutta is often (mis-)used for this purpose, and "kamma is intention" is also well known. Furthermore, the presumption that personal interpretations, when at odds with tradition, are nevertheless potentially valid, is a way of 'doing' personal religion that has been growing since the Protestant Revolution. Combined with an interest in Pali philology (saddha, et al), period Indian religious studies & sociology, neuroscience, and other related fields which favor a scientific Weltanschauung - with a similarly unique (sic) epistemological veracity - the whole approach seems well-captured by the term "Secular Buddhism".
- "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]
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
And the point about nirvana. The attainment of which he does not regard as the aim of Buddhist practice.Prasadachitta wrote: Its as if he thinks that he has figured out what Buddhism should be and then goes about saying what most Buddhists would agree it already is except for that one single point.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi Devarupa,The Dhamma is taken as being in an epistemological category, and not a metaphysical one, a distinction made in Western philosophy.
I have trouble getting much from this statement. How much background in Western philosophical categories do I need to understand what you are saying here.
All language is "symbolic". If we are to place the Dhamma into a Western philosophical view then I think it might be better to call it phenomenological. There is no reason to fuss over existence or non existence. What we take to exist is what we practice with and our modern world is full a spectacular myriad of points of view on existence. The Dhamma is not one of these and you dont need to reinterpret it from the bottom up as Batchelor says in order to realize this.Now, metaphysical claims have usually been associated with God/gods in Western philosophy (whence the idea 'secular' being deprived of such), and god realms and hell realms - essential to an explication of kamma, on the traditional view - fall into this category by definition. Therefore, gods and realms must have a symbolic interpretation, else be later interpolations, else be wholly tangential, e.g. ad infinitum.
[/quote]On this view, to say otherwise opens the door to competing metaphysical claims, which would eliminate the premise that the Dhamma has unique epistemological veracity. The Kalama Sutta is often (mis-)used for this purpose, and "kamma is intention" is also well known. Furthermore, the presumption that personal interpretations, when at odds with tradition, are nevertheless potentially valid, is a way of 'doing' personal religion that has been growing since the Protestant Revolution. Combined with an interest in Pali philology (saddha, et al), period Indian religious studies & sociology, neuroscience, and other related fields which favor a scientific Weltanschauung - with a similarly unique (sic) epistemological veracity - the whole approach seems well-captured by the term "Secular Buddhism".
I am having trouble seeing your point but I suspect that you are doing the same thing I percieve Batchelor to be doing.
Take Care
Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
I am simply trying to explain the approach, since you said it sounded strange.Prasadachitta wrote:I am having trouble seeing your point but I suspect that you are doing the same thing I percieve Batchelor to be doing.
Taking the Mahavamsa at its word when it says that Visnu is the protector of Sri Lankan Buddhism is a bit strange, as well, from certain points of view, not least of which is the bald anachronism of it. The question here really seems to be over how much of that sort of thing one needs to accept in order to successfully and authentically practice the Dhamma. Answers to that question vary based on numerous factors, but the groups of people who answer it in similar ways tend to group together. One such group is Secular Buddhism, which answers that such metaphysical things are immaterial. As a result, the traditional explanations of kamma, paticcasamuppada, etc. are not seen as tenable when held alongside the "personally verifiable" claim which is made about the Dhamma.
- "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]
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hi Kirk5a,kirk5a wrote:And the point about nirvana. The attainment of which he does not regard as the aim of Buddhist practice.Prasadachitta wrote: Its as if he thinks that he has figured out what Buddhism should be and then goes about saying what most Buddhists would agree it already is except for that one single point.
You Mean this
What does he mean by nirvana? Is he insinuating that it is other than a result which arises from the eightfold path here on earth? What does he mean by moment to moment flourishing? I would suggest that he will start describing nirvana.Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth.
Like this...
or this where he describes enlightenment in "his terms"...For human flourishing first stirs in that clear, bright, empty space where neurotic self-centredness realizes that it has no ground to stand on at all
Earthy versus other worldly or human versus beyond human are smoke and mirrors. Im not clear on what Batchelor wants to convey his opposition to other than the pivotal influence of intention upon further lives.a way of being-in-this-world that is no longer determined by one’s greed, hatred, fear and selfishness
Take care
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
- Prasadachitta
- Posts: 974
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
- Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
- Contact:
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
Hello Daverupa,daverupa wrote: I am simply trying to explain the approach, since you said it sounded strange.
Taking the Mahavamsa at its word when it says that Visnu is the protector of Sri Lankan Buddhism is a bit strange, as well, from certain points of view, not least of which is the bald anachronism of it. The question here really seems to be over how much of that sort of thing one needs to accept in order to successfully and authentically practice the Dhamma. Answers to that question vary based on numerous factors, but the groups of people who answer it in similar ways tend to group together. One such group is Secular Buddhism, which answers that such metaphysical things are immaterial. As a result, the traditional explanations of kamma, paticcasamuppada, etc. are not seen as tenable when held alongside the "personally verifiable" claim which is made about the Dhamma.
Batchelor says...
Since I practice with one of the groups which he brings up, I am looking for a distinction and truthfully I dont find one other than the one point I brought up. Every Tradition or school has many explanations and contexts for those explanations and it is always up to each individual to sort that out. This is not the domain of some special "secular Buddhist".So what sort of Buddhism does a self-declared “secular Buddhist” like myself advocate? For me, secular Buddhism is not just another modernist reconfiguration of
a traditional form of Asian Buddhism. It is neither a reformed Theravada Buddhism (like the Vipassana movement), a reformed Tibetan tradition (like Shambhala Buddhism), a reformed Nichiren school (like the Soka Gakkai), a reformed Zen lineage (like the Order of Interbeing), nor a reformed hybrid of some or all of the above (like the Triratna Order – formerly the FWBO). It is more radical than that: it seeks to return to the roots of the Buddhist tradition and rethink Buddhism from the ground up.
Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Re: Secular view - The Future of Religion
So having denied that nirvana is the aim of Buddhist practice, he will start describing nirvana?Prasadachitta wrote:What does he mean by nirvana? Is he insinuating that it is other than a result which arises from the eightfold path here on earth? What does he mean by moment to moment flourishing? I would suggest that he will start describing nirvana.
That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure how we could square that with the Pali teachings.Stephen Batchelor wrote: Likewise, nirvana – i.e. the stopping of craving – is not the goal of the path but its very source.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230