limit the influence of secular buddhism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Locked

should the influence of secular buddhism be limited on this forum?

yes - explain how
22
67%
no - explain why
11
33%
 
Total votes: 33

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by salayatananirodha »

"Dhamma Wheel
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism"

people who are aggressively pushing anti-rebirth views all over the forum should be limited.

even if rebirth itself is challenged as a doctrine, is is a central tenet of the dhamma of theravāda buddhism. this is simply not up for debate. if you're going to talk about theravāda buddhism, rather than secular buddhism, you have to accept that rebirth is part of the definition.

this is especially important in the theravāda for beginners section. people who are new to or ignorant of buddhism arrive there looking for answers to basic questions. when rebirth denial is present, it's misleading what agreeable, basic tenets of this religion are. it potentially confuses people who might not know better.
these diversions are off-topic.

you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread. the vast majority of people who identify themselves as theravāda buddhists should be able to take it up as a basic point of agreement in order to discuss less basic things. for challenging rebirth as a fundamental tenet of theravada buddhism, allow it in one thread or section, instead of all over the forum. it's highly distracting otherwise.
if someone started pushing propaganda that is mahayana, vajrayana, etc, their thread would be locked and they would be directed to one of the sister forums (dharma wheel, DWE, dharma paths) or their thread would at least be moved to 'connections to other paths'. since secular buddhism is distinct from theravada, why not give it the same treatment?

i raise this suggestion as a person who benefits from and enjoys coming here. i've relied on it in difficult times, and i've made friends off-site as well.

i added a poll here and i would appreciate if users were allowed time to vote and/or discuss. this issue been raised several times.
Last edited by salayatananirodha on Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by robertk »

One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by salayatananirodha »

robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
honestly, this single thing would be a major improvement, and i would like to see it
i think it could generate a lot of well-focused discussion
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:20 am people who are aggressively pushing anti-rebirth views all over the forum should be limited.
I disagree. Since the Buddha rarely appeared to generally teach about anything resembling the secular (worldly) idea of "rebirth", I think the secular believer in "rebirth" people who are aggressively pushing "jati" = "rebirth" views all over the forum should be limited to another forum; such as Sujato's Color Revolution Sutta Central.

About his True Dhammma, which is the only Dhamma Refuge, the Buddha said:
Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhī

The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.’


:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :bow:
The above obviously rules out "rebirth" as True Dhamma.

Again, in MN 117, "rebirth" is declared not to be Noble Dhamma:
And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
:alien:
robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
I think individuals who are unable to recite or quote the Dhamma Refuge cannot be regarded as Theravada Buddhists. :smile:
salayatananirodha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:20 am this is especially important in the theravāda for beginners section. people who are new to or ignorant of buddhism arrive there looking for answers to basic questions. when rebirth denial is present, it's misleading what agreeable, basic tenets of this religion are. it potentially confuses people who might not know better. these diversions are off-topic.
I knew a beginner to Buddhism who became a fanatic about rebirth, was an enemy towards me, and eventually committed suicide. It appears the rebirth teaching did not help them control their mind and overcome their defilements.

Individuals who were fanatics about drugs, sex, etc, with addictive personalities, should avoid making Buddhism their next fanatical addiction. Instead, they should learn to remove their defilements. This is what a beginner must learn to do. Remove or reduce their defilements. :smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
Sounds like a superb idea. For the same reason that having the Classical forums is wonderful, because there the Abhidhamma and Commentaries can be carefully examined without constant sniping that "The Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha". [And, of course, it's proper that members can debate that elsewhere if they wish.]

Another approach would be to move all posts debating rebirth to The Great Rebirth Debate: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41, but that would be an incredible burden on the moderation team, given their sheer volume.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:46 am Sounds like a superb idea.
It is a heretical idea because it is doctrinally unjustified. For example, there appears to be zero evidence in sutta "jati" means "rebirth" or "physical birth". If the wrong view is held about this, obviously, the outcome will be less than optimal. :shock:

If DW wishes to be more Buddhist, it can remove the TOU rule about kammic retribution because obviously the purpose of "rebirth" is to explain kammic retribution for morality purposes.

If DW follows the view of Mike, it will become an Evangelical forum, where everyone gets a good rebirth, regardless of deeds.
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by robertk »

mikenz66 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:46 am
robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

I take your point that "you shouldn't have to fall into a debate over rebirth on every single thread".
Sounds like a superb idea. For the same reason that having the Classical forums is wonderful, because there the Abhidhamma and Commentaries can be carefully examined without constant sniping that "The Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha". [And, of course, it's proper that members can debate that elsewhere if they wish.]

Another approach would be to move all posts debating rebirth to The Great Rebirth Debate: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41, but that would be an incredible burden on the moderation team, given their sheer volume.

:heart:
Mike
Thanks mike- I am in full agreement. Having the classical forum is a real refuge for anyone wanting to discuss orthodox theravada without unnecessary distractions. And also Early Buddhism allows those members to discuss without people like me sniping them about their perceived lack of orthodoxy.

It seems though that "General Theravada " needs a bit more refinement which an additional forum - like 'secular ' would add.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:54 am Thanks mike- I am in full agreement.
Since Dependent Origination appears not about "rebirth", the above agreement does not appear optimal. :shock:

Due to the Karmic Retribution TOU rule, it is not possible to explain the kammic retribution of the above. :shock:

Individuals who have just recently (tried) given up sexual fundamentalism, such as BDSM, should not be encouraged into religious fundamentalism.

Instead, these individuals with fanatical tendencies (anusaya) should reduce or temper their defilements (kilesa).

This topic is wisely best closed for the sake of the doctrinal tolerance the Buddha taught :sage:
Kalama Sutta wrote:"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

I support this idea. Something like having a rule that you cant tangentially preach about rebirth (in either direction) or whether or not the 31 planes of existence are literal or intricate metaphors on a thread in a manner that hijacks the direction of the thread. Unless of course, the OP intended to go into that direction of course. In fact I dont think people should be tangentially preaching about anything in a matter that hijacks the direction of a thread, it just happens this preaching is more of a problem with secular buddhism at the moment.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:31 am I support this idea. Something like having a rule that you cant tangentially preach about rebirth (in either direction) or whether or not the 31 planes of existence are literal or intricate metaphors on a thread in a manner that hijacks the direction of the thread. Unless of course, the OP intended to go into that direction of course. In fact I dont think people should be tangentially preaching about anything in a matter that hijacks the direction of a thread, it just happens this preaching is more of a problem with secular buddhism at the moment.
The above might be useful but i doubt the OP is caused by "hijacking" of threads. The OP appears concerned about the "beginners" forum and topic such as this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=39576

Here, the OP made a post, which I replied to, but which my reply was later deleted, i imagine by a moderator after the OP reported it. The OP posted:
salayatananirodha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:29 am i use these two suttas extensively when explaining my understanding of rebirth
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
then also the law of dependent arising
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Now, I simply replied none of the three sutta translations above mention the word "rebirth". We can all search the above suttas using a "find" function and we will find the word "rebirth" is not mentioned in any of these translations. Therefore, I did not "hijack" anything but merely mentioned to the OP none of the suttas he posted included the word "rebirth" or "reborn" or any Pali word commonly translated as such.

Indirectly, I suppose i was merely suggesting at least the OP quote suttas that commonly use the translation of "rebirth" or "reborn", such as MN 135 for example.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Inedible
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:55 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Inedible »

My vote was for no.

To me Secular Buddhism is far more than denying reincarnation. It involves using brain imaging technologies and blood chemistry workups. It is demonstrating results in the lives of real people. It is for people who want to sit quietly and be mindful of breathing first and worry about theology later. It is better to take a little bit of Dhamma that you know and practice it than to spend years studying (and debating) without getting around to applying it.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:54 am
mikenz66 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:46 am
robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:26 am One idea is adding a forum called "secular Buddhism' and limiting posts that dispute rebirth to that forum..

...
Sounds like a superb idea. ...
Thanks mike- I am in full agreement. ...
  • Thanks a lot. Great idea, to keep Buddha's teachings from personal interpretations.
  • On the other hand, it may be quite difficult to define Secular Buddhism. Unsurprisingly, the secularists even seem to regard themselves as re-discoverer of true Buddha's teachings, by doing "reconfiguration of core elements of the Buddha's Dhamma itself". :rofl:
    • secular Buddhism is founded on a reconfiguration of core elements of the dharma itself.[9] To this end it seeks to recover the original teachings of Siddhattha Guatama, the historical Buddha, yet without claiming to disclose "what the Buddha really meant". Rather, it interprets the early canonical teachings in a way that draws out their meaning in the Buddha's own historical context (the culture of the Gangetic plains in the fifth century BCE) while demonstrating their value and relevance to people living in our own time. Both aspects of this interpretation are literally "secular" in that they evoke the Latin root word saeculum – a particular age or generation. The ethos of the movement is perhaps best captured in Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.[10]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism
  • I voted yes. But, I don't know how.
:heart:
Last edited by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta on Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by TRobinson465 »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:53 am
TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:31 am I support this idea. Something like having a rule that you cant tangentially preach about rebirth (in either direction) or whether or not the 31 planes of existence are literal or intricate metaphors on a thread in a manner that hijacks the direction of the thread. Unless of course, the OP intended to go into that direction of course. In fact I dont think people should be tangentially preaching about anything in a matter that hijacks the direction of a thread, it just happens this preaching is more of a problem with secular buddhism at the moment.
The above might be useful but i doubt the OP is caused by "hijacking" of threads. The OP appears concerned about the "beginners" forum and topic such as this: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=39576

Here, the OP made a post, which I replied to, but which my reply was later deleted, i imagine by a moderator after the OP reported it. The OP posted:
salayatananirodha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:29 am i use these two suttas extensively when explaining my understanding of rebirth
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... .than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
then also the law of dependent arising
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Now, I simply replied none of the three sutta translations above mention the word "rebirth". We can all search the above suttas using a "find" function and we will find the word "rebirth" is not mentioned in any of these translations. Therefore, I did not "hijack" anything but merely mentioned to the OP none of the suttas he posted included the word "rebirth" or "reborn" or any Pali word commonly translated as such.

Indirectly, I suppose i was merely suggesting at least the OP quote suttas that commonly use the translation of "rebirth" or "reborn", such as MN 135 for example.
Yes, you are right that the above does not seem to be a strong case for hijacking the thread to preach about rebirth. But that doesn't mean there are not other cases where such tangential preaching about it occurs. Because this is a bit of a grey area this is something that would be more of a rule that is trial-based rather than a blanket rule that is easy to enforce on the spot.

Lets take the two extremes.

Theres existing rules on not making predictions or threats of kammic retribution and on explicit speech. These are violations that are easy to spot and can be enforced easily right away.

There was that now deprecated rule that "vilifying other buddhist traditions is strictly forbidden". That was more of a token feel-good rule for the admins, but despite being "strict" :quote: it was never enforced once by any moderator at all for the decade or so that was a rule.

The way to enforce something like this would be a middle way between these. You cant necessarily spot it and enforce it on the spot or without fair warning (three warnings maybe?), but to make the rule effective you can't do absolutely nothing at all and have that still be a rule.

Maybe something like how the removing "off topic" posts rule is enforced where its can be a grey area and only repeat offenders would get warnings and if you get a warning you can make a case you didnt break it in that instance. As you did above.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by robertk »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:34 am
robertk wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:54 am
mikenz66 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:46 am
Sounds like a superb idea. ...
Thanks mike- I am in full agreement. ...
  • Thanks a lot. Great idea, to keep Buddha's teachings from personal interpretations.
  • On the other hand, it may be quite difficult to define Secular Buddhism. Unsurprisingly, the secularists even seem to regard themselves as re-discoverer of true Buddha's teachings, by doing "reconfiguration of core elements of the Buddha's Dhamma itself". :rofl:
    • secular Buddhism is founded on a reconfiguration of core elements of the dharma itself.[9] To this end it seeks to recover the original teachings of Siddhattha Guatama, the historical Buddha, yet without claiming to disclose "what the Buddha really meant". Rather, it interprets the early canonical teachings in a way that draws out their meaning in the Buddha's own historical context (the culture of the Gangetic plains in the fifth century BCE) while demonstrating their value and relevance to people living in our own time. Both aspects of this interpretation are literally "secular" in that they evoke the Latin root word saeculum – a particular age or generation. The ethos of the movement is perhaps best captured in Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist.[10]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism
  • I voted yes. But, I don't know how.
:heart:
"secular Buddhism" is just one possible term. It might be people prefer 'Buddhism without Rebirth" or some such..
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: limit the influence of secular buddhism

Post by SarathW »

This is a hard question as I all for free inquiry.
I have no idea of what Buddha meant by birth or rebirth.
However, rejecting and accepting outright rebirth as a literal thing should be discouraged.
Kamma, Vipaka, rebirth, and Nibbana are hard concepts to grasp without faith.
I understand the danger of not having a balanced debate.
Sometimes the forums can be dominated by certain views and discourage free discussion.
Thankfully, in my opinion, Dhamma Wheel is a place for members to have different views without the threat of lifetime banning like Sutta Central D&D.
What we need is more participation, not restrictions.
I understand this place an enormous burden on moderators.

Since I am not sure of my position I voted "No"
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Locked