Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
befriend
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by befriend »

We should accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism. Buddhism is secular until you've reached the 4th jhana and attained the divine eye which allows one to see where beings go after death and others previous lives. The rest is what it is. If I believe in hell thats a beleif. It's not like I can go to a brahma Loka like a strong man extends his arm like Buddha. In my opinion cosmology does more harm than good clinging to these views as pure truths when you don't know is lying to yourself.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by mjaviem »

I think if it teaches four noble truths then it is some form of buddhism. Intentions are what matters.
befriend wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:46 pm ... In my opinion cosmology does more harm than good clinging to these views as pure truths when you don't know is lying to yourself.
Not easy task Im afraid.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by cappuccino »

befriend wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:46 pm In my opinion cosmology does more harm than good
that cannot be true


since Buddha taught
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by mjaviem »

mjaviem wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:23 am I think if it teaches four noble truths then it is some form of buddhism. Intentions are what matters.
befriend wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:46 pm ... In my opinion cosmology does more harm than good clinging to these views as pure truths when you don't know is lying to yourself.
Not easy task Im afraid.
See?
cappuccino wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:57 am
befriend wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:46 pm In my opinion cosmology does more harm than good
that cannot be true


since Buddha taught
Not easy task...
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Aloka »

I'm wondering if "Secular" Buddhism is an appropriate description. Maybe it should be refered to as "contemporary" Buddhism.

:shrug:

.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Secular Buddhists don't get to hog being contemporary.

:tongue:
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by cappuccino »

Buddhism is contemporary


The truth is here and now
unknown
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:09 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by unknown »

I believe Buddha would accept as a lay follower anyone willing to listen some of his teachings and put them in practice.

They could learn very little at first and continue to have many non-Buddhist beliefs and practices.

They might never have a chance or ability to learn more.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Kim OHara »

Aloka wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:09 pm I'm wondering if "Secular" Buddhism is an appropriate description. Maybe it should be refered to as "contemporary" Buddhism.

:shrug:

.
Coëmgenu's reply is a good one and so is Cappucino's but I would like to take a step back and argue that this whole labelling game is problematic, and from two separate directions.
(1a) Should I label myself? Will it make me happier, make my practice better, help other people understand me more quickly... ? If so, it had better be a label that I am comfortable wearing.
(1b) Should I, or must I, accept a label that someone else applies to me? If so, why?

If my label for myself is "secular Buddhist" and someone else's label for me is "Godless heathen", my labellers and I all have a problem. If none of us use labels, we can discuss matters of belief without those particular barriers.
:thinking:

(2) We use labels to simplify our description of the world around us (e.g. a "chair" is something we sit on, and we often don't need to know more than the label), but the world is unavoidably far messier than our labelling system implies. And the labelling is unavoidably a series of judgement calls, which makes it subjective. Where's the dividing line between "tall" people and "short" people? Pick a number: 1.5 metres will do. But is that standing height or lying down? Slouched or ramrod-straight? Including the dredlocks or not? etc. And is there any conceivable reason that separating a person of 1.5001 metres from one of 1.4999 metres?

It makes sense to ask whether a label is useful. Is "secular buddhism" a useful label? Well, yes, but only in some contexts, and only so long as we remember it's fuzzy.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by cappuccino »

place a bet with Buddha, not atheism


I think that's worthy advice
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Aloka »

Kim OHara wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 5:11 am
Aloka wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:09 pm I'm wondering if "Secular" Buddhism is an appropriate description. Maybe it should be refered to as "contemporary" Buddhism.

:shrug:

.
Coëmgenu's reply is a good one and so is Cappucino's but I would like to take a step back and argue that this whole labelling game is problematic, and from two separate directions.
(1a) Should I label myself? Will it make me happier, make my practice better, help other people understand me more quickly... ? If so, it had better be a label that I am comfortable wearing.
(1b) Should I, or must I, accept a label that someone else applies to me? If so, why?

If my label for myself is "secular Buddhist" and someone else's label for me is "Godless heathen", my labellers and I all have a problem. If none of us use labels, we can discuss matters of belief without those particular barriers.
:thinking:

(2) We use labels to simplify our description of the world around us (e.g. a "chair" is something we sit on, and we often don't need to know more than the label), but the world is unavoidably far messier than our labelling system implies. And the labelling is unavoidably a series of judgement calls, which makes it subjective. Where's the dividing line between "tall" people and "short" people? Pick a number: 1.5 metres will do. But is that standing height or lying down? Slouched or ramrod-straight? Including the dredlocks or not? etc. And is there any conceivable reason that separating a person of 1.5001 metres from one of 1.4999 metres?

It makes sense to ask whether a label is useful. Is "secular buddhism" a useful label? Well, yes, but only in some contexts, and only so long as we remember it's fuzzy.

:namaste:
Kim
Hi Kim,

You say you'd like to argue - but arguing in itself can be a such a dreary waste of time! We're all "Buddhists" if we choose to take Refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and I don't feel antagonistic towards "Secular" Buddhists if their level of understanding and practice is beneficial to them.

Personally I consider myself to be a Theravadin with Vajrayana connections. However, I'm not at all concerned about what others think about that - because its not their business and there's too much spiteful nonsense and attempts at one-upmanship running wild on the internet these days.

Regarding your "labels" monologue, I think labels are useful to some extent in Buddhist groups and internet forums because they help me to understand which position others might be coming from if I'm going to be involved in any dialogue with them.


Have a good day :anjali:
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, Aloka,
I used "argue" in the sense of propose or put forward the proposition, not dispute or debate, so I think we can agree not to "argue" in the other aggravating sense. :smile:

As for the rest, I agree completely - especially since none of the popular labels fit me at all well. The Pali Canon is my reference point but I get a lot out of the Mahayana schools and I particularly value Zen and TNH's Engaged Buddhism.
:juggling:
I don't mind calling myself - or being called - a "Buddhist" but I'm not keen on anything narrower than that.

:namaste:
Kim
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by sphairos »

to me "religious Buddhism" is an oxymoron like "atheistic Christianity". Buddhism is not a religion! To get an idea of what Buddhism is, read Plato's "Republic" (carefully, with proper introduction and notes).
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22398
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:11 pm to me "religious Buddhism" is an oxymoron like "atheistic Christianity". Buddhism is not a religion! To get an idea of what Buddhism is, read Plato's "Republic" (carefully, with proper introduction and notes).
Kamma, rebirth, Nibbana, ritual practices. This isn’t secular ;)
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Can we accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism?

Post by mjaviem »

sphairos wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:11 pm to me "religious Buddhism" is an oxymoron like "atheistic Christianity". Buddhism is not a religion! To get an idea of what Buddhism is, read Plato's "Republic" (carefully, with proper introduction and notes).
It depends on your definition of religion.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Post Reply