Is there a school in Buddhism that fits this view?

[edwhys211]

Is there a school (minor or major) that does not take rebirth and karma literally, but view them as symbolic; or a school that is agnostic about rebirth?

[polarbuddha101]

Yes, there is... http://secularbuddhism.org/. Of course, they haven't been around for very long.

[Dan74]

In my experience in most Buddhist places they don't require you to subscribe to their views. After all it is primarily about practice rather than believing or disbelieving things.

My teacher for instance believes in rebirth but it is not something that is prominent in her teachings at all. I am more towards the agnostic (neither believe nor disbelieve - I don't know).

More important perhaps is how wise and compassionate the teacher is?

[SarathW]

Hi Edwhy
Any Buddhist school don’t teach you to take anything literally. It is against Buddha’s advise. You practice, experience and realise yourself.
By the way, it is a good question.

[Ñāṇa]

Yes, there is... http://secularbuddhism.org/. Of course, they haven't been around for very long.

This isn't a Buddhist school.

[Ñāṇa]

Is there a school (minor or major) that does not take rebirth and karma literally, but view them as symbolic; or a school that is agnostic about rebirth?

No. Karma and rebirth are ubiquitous among all Buddhist schools.

[edwhys211]

Is there a school (minor or major) that does not take rebirth and karma literally, but view them as symbolic; or a school that is agnostic about rebirth?

No. Karma and rebirth are ubiquitous among all Buddhist schools.

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

[Ñāṇa]

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.

[dude]

Yes there are, and their contentions are absurd.
They call themselves followers of the Buddha, but they are in fact enemies of Buddhism, slanderers.
In the Buddha's own words, one who slanders the Buddha is someone who "Claims that the Thus Come said what he did not say, or who claims that The Thus Come One did not say what he said."

[Aloka]

Sounds like the beginnings of a Buddhist Inquisition - will there be thumb screws and the rack for these ''enemies of Buddhism'' ?

[daverupa]

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.

Indian materialism tends to reject causation and moral efficacy, which the Dhamma upholds, if I recall correctly.

Rejecting supernaturalism, however, is a different animal altogether...

[dude]

Sounds like the beginnings of a Buddhist Inquisition - will there be thumb screws and the rack for these ''enemies of Buddhism'' ?

Of course not, but there are consequences. The Nirvana Sutra states that one who "reproaches, punishes, or drives [the offender] off is my disciple and understands my teachings."

[daverupa]

...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...

[polarbuddha101]

Yes, there is... http://secularbuddhism.org/. Of course, they haven't been around for very long.

This isn't a Buddhist school.

Yeah, I know, I was half kidding. But anyway, it is slowly turning into one. You can talk about buddhist schools but they are all wrong if they don't follow the dhamma or preach what is not dhamma as dhamma or what is dhamma as not dhamma, but they are still buddhist schools (vajrayana is a possible example). I think the distinction between dhamma-vinaya and school of buddhism is an important one.

[Aloka]

The Nirvana Sutra states that one who "reproaches, punishes, or drives [the offender] off is my disciple and understands my teachings."

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

The Nirvana Sutra or Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Chinese: Nièpán Jīng (涅槃經); Japanese: Nehankyō (涅槃経); Standard Tibetan: myang 'das kyi mdo is one of the major sutras of Mahayana Buddhism.

It shares its title with another well-known Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Pali Canon but is quite different in form and content.

It is therefore generally referred to by its full Sanskrit title, Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Mahā-sūtra or more commonly simply the "Nirvana Sutra".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

.

[mikenz66]

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Mike

[daverupa]

Mike

Still quite different from the line in question...

[m0rl0ck]

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.

[daverupa]

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.

By and large, I think I agree. Nevertheless, let us all be wary of committing a bad reasons fallacy; the Nikayas bear a critical analysis.

[alan]

There are the Suttas, your understanding of them, and your practice. Your view should be based on these principles.