We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?
Asked
Active
Viewed 156 times
0
-
2Please provide appropriate Title for your question. – Swapnil Dec 27 '19 at 09:10
-
"Which school of Buddhism (e.g. secular or traditional) is better?" is considered an unanswerable (or unaskable) question on this site. I don't even understand the question, so I cannot reword it. – ChrisW Jan 02 '20 at 19:10
-
Thats a valid question: "In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?", just chance the question title. The foulish opinion based killing is teally useless and just opinion. Not to speak about Dana at the right time: new arriver. – Jan 07 '20 at 12:30
-
Should a side be limited by the not understanding of a non refugee? – Jan 07 '20 at 12:32
-
"is considered an unanswerable (or unaskable) question on this site"... the Buddha was very clear on it. Unless not wishing to produce fakes or spread lies public, there isn't and reason for such statements. – Jan 08 '20 at 08:32
-
@SamanaJohann The site's or community's policy was to not invite questions of the form, "Which school of Buddhism is better?", or, "Is school A better than school B?", which is what this question seems to be asking. – ChrisW Jan 08 '20 at 09:57
-
The OP doesn't ask that. And this former community is long extinguished as well. "Seems", is plane opinion, or? So what all that foundation less burden of questioner and those willing to answer, good careholder. So good to remove this personal opinion censuring. – Jan 08 '20 at 11:15
-
"In short, in today's world (todays BSE) doesn't secular Buddhism (opinions of ourtsider moderator) better fit reality?" – Jan 08 '20 at 11:18
3 Answers
3
You know, speaking personally, I've never been able to make hats work. I've tried on a lot of different hats, but no matter what, when I put on a hat I end up looking like the world's biggest doof. Some people really rock hats; hats suit them. I have to respect that, but honestly it doesn't help answer the question of whether or not we should all wear hats. It's a contentious point.
We could argue about that, I suppose, but while we do the meal is getting cold.
We all need to develop discrimination: to know what is important, and what is not, and to avoid getting tangled up in the latter. No one can discriminate for us. Spiritual traditions can help keep us on the path or hinder our development; secular independence can free us to advance or get us lost in the woods. Wear a hat, don't wear a hat; in the end it's irrelevant, because a hat has nothing to do with awakening. Either way, it's just a style we adopt for the sake of our egos while we walk the path, and sooner or later we're going to want to slough off matters of style.
Ted Wrigley
- 5,147
- 6
- 22
1
I would like to have a clear definition of 'secular Buddhism' as understood by the OP. I can make little sense of the phrase.
From the Wiki definition I can see no difference between 'secular' Buddhism and Mahayana. It seems to be a phrase used by those who believe Buddhism is about religious beliefs and the supernatural. As this is a wrong view the phrase seems redundant and meaningless.
I would normally assume that someone who calls themselves a secular Buddhist has almost no understanding of it.
As for Buddhism not being fit for today's world the idea is ridiculous. It's the same world it always was. I really cannot imagine how a modern human with internet access can confuse Buddhism with religious beliefs and dogma and oppose this to secularism. It tells us something about how little effort many people put into understanding philosophy and religion before leaping to conclusions.
-
secular means related, objected fot the world (sense) till even denying that there is something beyond. May it be of use to improve the answer. – Jan 08 '20 at 08:28
-
@SamanaJohann 'Secular' means not connected with religious or spiritual matters. So much for secular Buddhism. . – Jan 08 '20 at 11:37
-
-
-
@PeterJ I think it was criticism, or at least reflexive -- "first you (Peter, in your answer) ask for a definition, then (later in the answer and/or comment) you act as if you're the smart one ... and there, that's 'secular' for you, that's what secular is/means/is like." – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 12:37
-
@Chis - Yes, I was being disingenuous. I suggested that a definition for secularism would be an improvement to the question. I did not say I did not know the definition. I'm mightily fed-up with the constant garbled and needlessly critical posts from this poster. I find it difficult to believe he is a Buddhist and i am happy to let him know this. I'm close to leaving the site so don't mind getting into trouble over this. It is unacceptable. . . . – Jan 09 '20 at 12:48
-
I suspended his account again about an hour ago -- but thank you for the feedback. If there's any conflict between you again in future then I might to suggest you just flag it for a moderator. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 12:53
-
@Chris- I consider some of this to be my fault. I should be able to deal with these things better. I know it is easy to post idiotic comments and I do it all too regularly, which is why I may leave, but it's the ill-will in this case that I find unacceptable. – Jan 09 '20 at 13:00
-
@PeterJ I don't know that it's ill-will. I suspect (I get the impression that) he thinks we're all highly deluded for not being monks ourselves and for conversing about Buddhism here instead of in a more formal/appropriate/traditional place i.e. a monastery, including with our necessary/proper respect for monks -- which is arguably for our welfare and not ill-willed. Nevertheless ad hominem comments are forbidden on this site, hence my suspending his user account, and not for the first time. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 13:12
-
I was offline for a few days (travelling with my mum for a funeral), and found dozens of comments when I got back yesterday, and here's me trying to sort the aftermath. If anything like this does happen again I think you can just flag it -- then I'll look at it eventually. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 13:15
-
0
The discrepancy between Buddhism and modern society is not the fault of Buddhism. This problem signifies that society is drawing away from reality. Of course, since "Buddhism" is the expression of the Dharma in samsara, it is also subject to degeneration.
Pristine Dharma as the Buddha knew it will remain the absolute Truth. The ease of access to it will fluctuate and become more difficult as society falters against it. Based on my understanding, "secular Buddhism" is an example of corruption.
M-2
- 333
- 1
- 5
-
Corruption or discarding of irrelevant mythology? Let's not forget that all schools of Buddhism were influenced by the prevailing cosmologies and religions of both its homeland and the countries in which is was imported. A supreme deity is completely irrelevant in Buddhism, and the literal interpretation of Samsara is copied from Hinduism. If you classify secular Buddhism, i.e. the consequence of being imported into a secular society, as corruption, would you not also need to classify Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese schools of Buddhism, or even evolving insights in Indian tradition as corruption? – Codosaur Dec 27 '19 at 18:30
-
@Codosaur, any reformulation of the original message of the Buddha it's a corruption. The Dhamma is about the uproot of conceit and If someone insist in cherry-pick his teachings without give it a proper try to all of them, this means that he is not willing to let go of his own conceit and personal preconceived views. That being so, it is a corrupted dhamma because the original meaning and purpose has been lost. – Danilo Dec 27 '19 at 19:28
-
So, according to this reasoning, all schools of Buddhism except the Mahāsāṃghika is corrupted teaching, since any school branched from this first school "reformulated" the original message? And how could you prove beyond any doubt what the "original message" was? The canon was only written down centuries after Gautama, and the reliability of oral traditions is inaccurate at best. – Codosaur Dec 27 '19 at 23:21
-
@Codosaur, schools and branchs aside, the guidelines to know what is in line with the Dhamma and what is not, was given in https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_53.html – Danilo Dec 28 '19 at 13:05
-
"dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to reclusiveness, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome" - Nothing I see here would imply incompatibility with Secular Buddhism. In fact, many are echoed in the core principles of Humanism and Sceptical Reasoning, as well as in Science. – Codosaur Dec 28 '19 at 21:17
-
@Codosaur, "secular buddhists" discard some teachings beforehand, this by itself, means that their conceit are taking place, they are not willing to let go of their sense of identity which comes from their secular values and mindset. – Danilo Dec 28 '19 at 23:45
-
@Danilo Good point. As Codosaur suggests, secular Buddhists are not usually people who study Buddhism, for if they were they'd know the word 'secular' is entirely redundant. Presumably they imagine Buddhists are credulous believers in thrall to mythology and religious icons. They might as well just say they are not interested in Buddhism since clearly it is the case. . – Jan 02 '20 at 14:55
-
It's not a matter of time, this Dhamma as Adhamma as well, but a matter of right or wrong view. – Jan 08 '20 at 08:29
-
I wonder if secular Buddhism is a reaction to non-Mahayana schools which have a more dogmatic and scripture-based approach, much in the same way that Materialism is a reaction to the excesses of monotheism. Just wondering. – Jan 08 '20 at 11:42
-
@PeterJ Wikipedia suggests the term ("secular") is associated with Stephen Batchelor -- and his Wikipedia entry says his experience was with Tibetan and Korean Zen. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 11:48
-
@ChrisW - I'm stumped for an explanation then. Apparently his 'pragmatic' approach "may open up the possibility of going beyond the belief-based metaphysics of classical Indian soteriology (Buddhism 1.0) to a praxis-based, post-metaphysical vision of the dharma". I presume some people can make sense of this idea.but I'm not one of them. – Jan 09 '20 at 12:02
-
@PeterJ I'm guessing it might be what's left of Buddhism after subtracting (or ignoring) any doctrine[s] about rebirth, about other realms (heaven and hell), and about beings in other realms (Gods, demons, devas) ... but, I don't know. I came to this site to learn more about traditional/classic Buddhism instead of how modern and/or western authors might try to paraphrase or adapt it. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 12:34
-
@ChrisW - What makes rebirth a secular or non-secular idea, and what does it matter which it is? All that matters is whether it is true or false. The realms of Hell and Hungry Ghosts are secular places, psychological states, unless we imagine they are up in the sky with the flying spaghetti monsters. – Jan 09 '20 at 12:56
-
@PeterJ That's what it said, on the 3rd paragraph of Wikipedia --
... stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that cannot be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, and karma, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.I guess e.g. the idea of mother being reborn as a mouse doesn't fit with skeptical/scientific inquiry. – ChrisW Jan 09 '20 at 13:04 -
@ChrisW - This issue depends on how we interpret words such as 'rebirth', 'devas' etc. If we give them a psychological interpretation the idea they are superstitions becomes untenable. We should be looking for this interpretation precisely in order to overcome our superstitions. The idea of a mother being reborn as a mouse cannot be studied by the physical sciences but is only non-scientific if there is no way to verify it, and Buddhism never teaches anything that cannot be verified. I get the idea of secular Buddhism but feel its a poorly-chosen and unfortunate adjective. – Jan 09 '20 at 13:29
-