Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

binocular wrote: Postmodernism (ha ha*) can be said to be a "solid view of its own" as well. Even Justin Bieber fans have a solid worldview of their own ...

Garrib wrote:I think we should be careful not to conflate the doctrine of annata and the idea that "no one is home so nothing matters" - in no way are these the same things. Beings experience suffering, and human beings have needs and desires, and it is kind and right that we should wish and support others to have a decent quality of life. The fact that there is no inherently existing independent eternal self or soul has nothing to do with the practical fact that a hungry person needs food. Non-self is not nihilism - it is meant to dispel a persistent delusion that leads to suffering, continuously.

Ripser wrote:
No wonder "secular" Buddhism has softened the potentially "gloomy" side of the teachings, as well as the emphasis on monasticism and on the determination and zeal required to attain higher states of consciousness, a heavenly rebirth or, of course, Nirvana. As Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed out somewhere, this gradual adaptation seems to reduce Buddhism to some ancient form of psychological -or stress- therapy.

Garrib wrote:I think we should be careful not to conflate the doctrine of annata and the idea that "no one is home so nothing matters" - in no way are these the same things.

Beings experience suffering, and human beings have needs and desires, and it is kind and right that we should wish and support others to have a decent quality of life. The fact that there is no inherently existing independent eternal self or soul has nothing to do with the practical fact that a hungry person needs food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

In short, we have the idea that everything originates out of matter, including consciousness. From this comes the idea that after out body will die, all ends there. Since consciousness originted out of matter, and matter originated randomly out of other matter, consciousness will never originate again and therefore no rebirth.

The problem with this theory is that it's only a dogma, an assumption. Because consciousness is supported by a physical body, the idea appeared that it also originated because of this body that supports it. The problem is, the way it has originated has never been solved and that's why it's called "the hard problem of consciousness'. The reason it has never been solved is because it's impossible for consciousness to originate out of matter. Many more centuries can pass from today and nobody will solve it, because it's a wrong question.

The other problem is about materialism being contradicted by scientifical findings such as neuroplasticity, the placebo effect, quantum physics, etc. How can an immaterial things such as a simple mental tendency or a simple belief have the ability to modify matter ? This should not happen if the theory of materialism would be correct. You can try some mental juglerly, saying this consciousness is something immaterial that originated out of some form of material process that made it pup into existence and then it has the power to modify matter. But it is technically impossible for an immagerial thing to pup out of a material process, let alone go on to have a life of it's own, with the ability to modify matter from that point on.

And do we even need to get started about quantum physics, which has simply burried materialism ? The only way for materialist scientist to preserve their views after quantum physics has been the Many-worlds interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... rpretation
And even this theory, as ridiculous as it it, does not properly defend materialism. Not to mention it doesn't even have anything to do with the hard problem of consciousness, so not addressing the big problem at all.

Materialism is a theory that has been refuted. Believing in a refuted theory is like believing the world is flat. You can try some twisting in your head, such as saying "maybe all these things don't refute materialism. Maybe materialist will find something in the future and make it all stick together" - is just like trying to say the world is not 10.000 years old but the bible is still true. I repeat, believing in a refuted theory is just like believing the world is flat.

binocular wrote:To be a secular Buddhist, one has to take away nibbana as a goal or the greatest good (because it is "too mystical" or whatever).

Spiny Norman wrote:I don't think this is the case. There are different interpretations of what Nibbana is.

Maitri wrote:Just practice and study Stoicism and leave Buddhism out of it. Secular Buddhism is just as silly as saying Secular Hinduism or Secular Islam.

If a person is uncomfortable with cultivating faith in certain aspects of a tradition, it is not right of them to change it to suite it their own neurosis or uncertainty. Making Christianity more liberal and secular friendly has absolutely destroyed it as an institution in the West. The mainline churches are collapsing in the West and even the non-denominational churches have leveled off in popularity.

People like Spong did more to gut Christianity from the inside than any outside atheist could even dream. Buddhism will not be able to grow based on a Secular model. Secular Buddhism is a false teaching.

Garrib wrote:It's really difficult to say what the effect of this secularization really is - in my own case, I encountered "secular buddhism" and became interested a few years before I took refuge as a proper Buddhist. However, I also was looking into Mahayana/Vajrayana etc...Something was obviously drawing me towards 1) Meditation and 2) the Buddha. Eventually I realized that it was the Buddha I was looking for all along, and that I didn't need all these go betweens. Too confusing!

So, can secular buddhism (and the other forms of "buddhism") be a gateway towards the dhamma? (A stepping stone?) Or something that obscures it? Or both? Or neither? Hard to say...

befriend wrote:how can a secular Buddhist even read the Nikayas? Wouldn't it make them feel odd? its really religious intolerance it's like an advanced form of a hate crime. It's religious genocide.

And when the Blessed One had set the Wheel of Dhamma in motion, the earth devas cried out: "At Varanasi, in the Game Refuge at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara or God or anyone in the cosmos." On hearing the earth devas' cry, the devas of the Four Kings' Heaven took up the cry... the devas of the Thirty-three... the Yama devas... the Tusita devas... the Nimmanarati devas... the Paranimmita-vasavatti devas... the devas of Brahma's retinue took up the cry: "At Varanasi, in the Game Refuge at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara, or God or anyone at all in the cosmos."

So in that moment, that instant, the cry shot right up to the Brahma worlds. And this ten-thousand fold cosmos shivered & quivered & quaked, while a great, measureless radiance appeared in the cosmos, surpassing the effulgence of the devas. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Secularism or materialism applied to any traditional religion is not a modifier, but purely destructive. Many moderns require above all, comfort, comfort in sensory realms and comfort emotionally & intellectually. Only the visible matters, brain = mind etc. Ancient truths of invisible, intangible realms and beings, complex and thus un-comfortable notions of rebirth and karma are just too bothersome.

Reduce stress and avoid bad vibrations, we only live once anyway - such is secularism - however adorned with any spiritual trappings.

By the by Maitri, I think even Stoicism had God or Divine reason, so even it is not material enough for many moderns.

“Run down the list of those who felt intense anger at something: the most famous, the most unfortunate, the most hated, the most whatever: Where is all that now? Smoke, dust, legend…or not even a legend. Think of all the examples. And how trivial the things we want so passionately are.”