"Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pyluyten
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by pyluyten »

The core problem to this is that the Buddha:
Accepted the reality of rebirth based on his own meditative experience
Placed this reality at the core of his teaching.
Well, for secularist, it is not because "Buddha" said this that this it is "true". Even if we skip the question of authenticity this does not change the outcome. One is not to believe what might be checked, not what was said by that or that "master".

None of this shows that the Buddha was correct. It merely shows that his claims are rational and empirical. Any empirical hypothesis may be fully rational yet still false—something that was, indeed, pointed out by the Buddha himself. This is why I said above that, even though I believe the Buddha was right about rebirth, I think it is rational to believe that he was wrong.

It does, however, show that the secularist dismissal of rebirth as metaphysics or superstition is wrong-headed. If they want to fulfill their claims of making a truly rational, scientific account of Buddhism, they must start by accepting that rebirth is an empirical theory, and investigate it as such.
a scientific theory has to be challengable. Yes you might reply, "one can medidate and challenge theory", but let's imagine there is no nibbana. Then no one will never be able to challenge the theory that nibbana exists because no one will never ever be able to prove it does not exist. ("I did not reach it" is not a proof it does not exist.) As a consequence, it is not a scientific theory. As a consequence, saying this is "empirical" is not that appropriate regarding this debate ("secular" , "scientific"). It might be appropriate regarding other debates of course.
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Garrib »

Dictionary definition of "Empirical", pulled up from Google: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So in that sense, the Buddha is claiming that his teachings are indeed empirical, because he did not reason or theorize his way to the conclusions, rather he understood fully through direct knowledge. Similarly, practice is an empirical matter for us as well, because we are ultimately concerned with what we experience and know directly - although the terrain has been mapped and we are placing faith in the mapmaker to guide us towards certain realizations. But we don't actually realize these things until we see them for ourselves...So yes, I do believe that the theory of rebirth is empirical, although it may not be easy to prove in an entirely objective third person manner, nor by relying on purely physical observations.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10178
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Spiny Norman »

Bundokji wrote:There is something honest with secular Buddhism especially when it comes to rebirth. It is not about the absence of faith, but that the idea of literal rebirth seems to contradict with Anatta. As long as we don't have a clear answer of what is it that gets re-birthed, the skepticism is valid.
Indeed, and there is very little in the suttas about the "mechanics" of the rebirth process. On the other hand though I see very little support in the suttas for "moment-to-moment" rebirth interpretations, given that birth, aging and death are invariably described as physical events and processes, rather than as purely psychological ones.

There is also the argument that what you believe or don't believe about rebirth isn't particularly relevant to daily practice in the here-and-now.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Bundokji »

Spiny Norman wrote:Indeed, and there is very little in the suttas about the "mechanics" of the rebirth process. On the other hand though I see very little support in the suttas for "moment-to-moment" rebirth interpretations, given that birth, aging and death are invariably described as physical events and processes, rather than as purely psychological ones.

There is also the argument that what you believe or don't believe about rebirth isn't particularly relevant to daily practice in the here-and-now.
Maybe you are technically right, there is no explicit mentioning of "psychological rebirth" in the suttas. However, i attempt to look at the bigger picture both in the teachings and in what we currently know through science and daily observations of the world we live in. I cannot be sure if my approach is correct.

I am not sure if the distinction between the physical and the psychological is ultimately accurate. Newly born babies, in the absence of sensory experience, still come to this world with tendencies and readiness to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli (through instincts, readiness to learn language ...etc), so psychological conditioning starts with physical birth (by what is known as genetic memory). Who knows, maybe enlightened beings and very advanced practitioners developed very powerful minds that enabled them to enter their genetic memory and to see their ancestors through endless rounds of birth and death. All of us are the result of it.

The Buddha's teachings speaks about suffering, which is life as experienced by the unenlightened mind and driven by this blind and futile force. The practice as i understand it is to see ones own conditioning and that of others and how it is all connected. The way we are conditioned does not only affect us, but people we interact with. My father passed away in 2002, but he still exists through me. Every action he performed in the world left a "finger print" in the world if i may say, we all do.

I respectfully disagree with your input that the way we understand rebirth is not relevant to daily practice. The literal understanding is too individualistic, which results in a practice driven by fear. I want to behave in this life because i am afraid to get reborn in lower realms, not too different from other religions. However, there can be a universal understanding of the Dhamma that is based on the unity between the individual and the world, and it is not just a romantic idea, but observable in the here and now. Just imagine if your practice is not driven by personal fear, but by seeing how everything is connected, how would this affect your practice and the way you interact with the world?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by binocular »

Bundokji wrote:The thread is not about "ordinary secular people" but "why secular Buddhism is Not True".
That's the thread title, but the OP is then asking questions about rebirth, and specifically in relation to secular Buddhism.
Bundokji wrote:I would not call it problematic, but an attempt to have a coherent understanding of Buddhism.
But they don't try to "understand Buddhism."
They are trying to understand something (probably the concepts that Buddhism presents); but then they insist in their own standards of understanding, and call this understanding "Buddhism", when it is not. It's just secularism.
Both sides have their own strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.
Such a comparison and such an analysis of pros and cons puts us firmly outside of Buddhism and into secularism.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by binocular »

Spiny Norman wrote:There is also the argument that what you believe or don't believe about rebirth isn't particularly relevant to daily practice in the here-and-now.
Where did you see that argument? In the suttas? Post it!
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Binocular,

I'm not Spiny, but I think this one achieves his intent...

MN 60: Apannaka Sutta
"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by binocular »

Greetings, Retrofuturist,

Similar to your canonical reference, at the end of the Kalama sutta, there is the section on the four assurances:
“Now, Kālāmas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones—his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure—acquires four assurances in the here & now:

“‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit & result of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.

“‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit & result 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.

“‘If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance he acquires.

“‘But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_66.html
It's not clear how such passages can be taken as a blanket disregard of rebirth. Namely, both of these suttas take for granted that living "free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure" is its own reward.

But it is open to discussion what "freedom from hostility, freedom from ill will, being undefiled and pure" would or should actually look like in practice.

Living "free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure" in a conservative Buddhist sense would make one a loser and a pariah in the modern world, making it very hard for such a person to still believe that those personal qualities are worthwhile.

On the other hand, under the dictate of political correctness, a person exhibiting straightforward hatred and hostility can still be claimed to be "free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure."

In conclusion, in the suttas, concerns over rebirth can be seen to be set aside or assauged when living "free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure" is seen as being own reward. But beyond that, it's not clear how concerns over rebirth can or should be set aside.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by binocular »

Bundokji wrote:I respectfully disagree with your input that the way we understand rebirth is not relevant to daily practice. The literal understanding is too individualistic, which results in a practice driven by fear. I want to behave in this life because i am afraid to get reborn in lower realms, not too different from other religions.
So what if it's not too different from other religions?
However, there can be a universal understanding of the Dhamma that is based on the unity between the individual and the world, and it is not just a romantic idea, but observable in the here and now. Just imagine if your practice is not driven by personal fear, but by seeing how everything is connected, how would this affect your practice and the way you interact with the world?
That is even more scary!
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Bundokji »

binocular wrote:Such a comparison and such an analysis of pros and cons puts us firmly outside of Buddhism and into secularism.
In my mind, such comparison is very "Buddhist" and here i am referring to the essence of the teachings. I have heard once that the terms "right view" and "wrong view" are not very accurate translations, but "complete view" and "incomplete view" is a better translation.

A part of understanding suffering in my opinion is to see that fixed views always comes at an expense, and wisdom is the very awareness that the nature of existence is irreparably flawed.

The Buddhist truth is not correspondence theory of truth, but at the same time, to say that it has nothing to do with it is mistaken. The same can be said about all other theories of truth.

To be overly fixated by the suttas and certain interpretations is as harmful as completely disregarding them.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Bundokji »

binocular wrote:So what if it's not too different from other religions?
I can only speak about myself. While there are similarities between Buddhism and other religions, what makes it the jewel in the crown is that it treated human beings in a mature way. The effects of the duality of fear and greed as the main drivers of behavior might say more about the practitioner than about Buddhism.

Don't you remember what you quoted on a different thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_ ... evelopment
That is even more scary!
I am not feeling particularly scared today :tongue:
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: I'm not Spiny, but I think this one achieves his intent...
MN 60: Apannaka Sutta
"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
It's worth also quoting the previous paragraph from MN 60:
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn60/11
“Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is no other world’ has wrong view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is no other world’ has wrong intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is no other world’ has wrong speech. Since there actually is another world, one who says ‘there is no other world’ is opposed to those arahants who know the other world. Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another ‘there is no other world’ convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, opposition to noble ones, convincing another to accept an untrue Dhamma, and self-praise and disparagement of others—these several evil unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.
:heart:
Mike
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Garrib »

Living "free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure" in a conservative Buddhist sense would make one a loser and a pariah in the modern world, making it very hard for such a person to still believe that those personal qualities are worthwhile.


I'm sorry this has been your experience, Binocular. For me, it is the exact opposite - to whatever extent I can cultivate and maintain those good qualities, my life is better, as are my relationships with others.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Ceisiwr »

I'm not sure which side is "true" or not. That being said, some secular Buddhists merely say "I do not know if rebirth and kamma are real, I just practice anyway".

That's been my take over the years anyway. I do not deny it, but I do not hold a firm belief. I merely say "possibly" and bear this teaching in mind:
""Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'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.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

To say I firmly believe in rebirth would be a lie, which is why I do not. But, to say I completely deny it would also be a lie.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: "Why secular Buddhism is Not True"

Post by Ceisiwr »

I have also found this book interesting, which relates to the topic somewhat
The notion of 'view' or 'opinion' (ditthi) as an obstacle to 'seeing things as they are' is a central concept in Buddhist thought. This book considers the two ways in which the notion of views are usually understood. Are we to understand right-view as a correction of wrong-views (the opposition understanding) or is the aim of the Buddhist path the overcoming of all views, even right-view (the no-views understanding)? The author argues that neither approach is correct. Instead he suggests that the early texts do not understand right-view as a correction of wrong-view, but as a detached order of seeing, completely different from the attitude of holding to any view, wrong or right.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Notion-Ditthi- ... 0415342937
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply