what is Secular Buddhism ?

[ratikala]

namaskaram Metis ji

I'm not familiar with the Lam rim, but I plan on looking it up.

I hope you will enjoy it , it is a Tibetan Gelugspa text so please be sure to read a Gelugspa translation the first I read was translated by Geshe Thubten Jinpa , called 'Path to Bliss' (A Practical Guide to Stages of Meditiation ), ...published by Snow Lion , ....

I think concepts like nirvana and karma can be, and probably should be, questioned versus being blindly swallowed. However, coming up with answers is gonna be pretty difficult if we try to deal with this objectively, but I personally don't have a problem with saying "I don't know".

this is very much the purpose of lam rim meditations to contemplate all aspects of the path , ...

To me, it's more the FNT and EP as their dealing with the issue of suffering that's more at the core of Buddhism, so I think it can well survive even if one or most do seriously question nirvana and karma.

What do you think?

lamrim discusses the defects of Cyclic existance also discusses motivation , saying that if we do not contemplate the truth of suffering and the falacy of samsara then the wish to become free would not arise so there is equal empasis on the Four Noble Truths , ....lam rim being mahayana also points out that it is considered a down fall to neglect to study and practice the Hinayana teachings , ....

what do I think ? ......

being a Mahayanaist , ....I think that it is important to cultivate the right awareness , lamrim goes through this stage by stage explaining the importance of understanding what binds us to Samsara and what releases us from the cycle of birth and death , ...in Mahayana more empasis is put upon attaining enlightenment for the benifit of all sentient beings , and less on personal attainment ...karma acts as an obstical to liberation so it is important to understand cause and effect , .... Nirvana is simply a state of mind attained by an enlightened being , ...personaly I do think that it is important to contemplate this as nirvana it self is the state in which pure compassion arrises , ..it is the pure compassion that is of more importance than the personal attainment of Nirvana , ....

 

[Twilight Hue]

Secular Budhism can be an effort to 'step in', when trad Buddhism fails at some instance/. This is not really ''Budhism'', per se, but a pantomime, a sort of ''act''. It's never fully achievable, though, because the premise is incorrect. ''Buddhism'', as well, means things that aren't really ''Buddhist'', they just got included in the label, sort of. So, you have to ask, what ''Buddhism''? Before one can begin to ask other things.

So, different answers

There were/are many instances and discussions as to weither Zen was even arguably Buddhism. Things like this seems to inevitably boil down to schematics.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram , ...

"Secular Buddhism" was popularised by Stephen Batchelor, you should get a good sense of it by looking here: Secular Buddhist Association

thank you for the link , ....


Secular Buddhism :: Guiding Principles


Understanding

1. Secular Buddhism understands Siddhattha Gotama as a human being, having lived within the cultural context of his time.
2. Secular Buddhism understands the four noble truths as an accurate, empirical description of the experience of living, and as a methodology of understanding, social behavior, and mental development.
3. Secular Buddhism understands the community of practitioners as integral to the positive development of society.

Purpose

1. Secular Buddhism supports a culture of awareness, encouraging the availability of this teaching and practice.
2. Secular Buddhism supports a culture of development, incorporating personal growth with interpersonal growth to improve social interactions and society.
3. Secular Buddhism supports a culture of awakening, finding its inspiration from Buddhist and non-Buddhist, religious and secular sources alike.

Qualities

1. Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world.
2. Secular Buddhism is form independent, making it flexible for integration into daily life in a variety of cultural contexts.
3. Secular Buddhism is inclusive, fostering learning and practice across cultural and traditional bounds.

"Modern Buddhism" I'm not sure about, since all contemporary Buddhism is "modern" and it suggests there is an "old-fashioned" Buddhism.

"Material Buddhism" I haven't heard of, but could be a reference to Secular Buddhism.

I amsort of also assuming when people have used the two above designations they are making reference to Secular Buddhism in some way , ???

Sometimes people talk about "Western Buddhism", but trying to define what that means would be quite difficult.

many times it seams to be used for Buddhism in the west where it dosent strictly follow one tradition , but can be almost eclectic taking a little from each tradition , or taking only what apeals or is deemed relevant for western practitioners .

in the early days of mainstream Buddhism here 'the Freinds of the Western Buddhist Order' were quite influential , took a little from each tradition and taught very much what people wanted to learn , a little meditation , ...a little loving kindness , ...a little social conscience , .all well and good ...but to my mind this eclecticism allthough well intentioned was selective and left out some vital elements , .....

for me this approach lacks the systemised teachings found in Tibetan Buddhism , to me attatchment is a very important issue and a great cause of human suffering therefore surrender and refuge are vital parts of ones sadhana , ....therefore thorough and systematic practice is very important many systems taught in the west seem to lack the full comitment of more traditional systems .

 

[paarsurrey]

Secular Buddhism

When did it start? Was Buddha a secular or a religious person?
Regards

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Paarsurrey ji

When did it start?

I can only assume that a more secular approach stated with the early interest shown in Buddhism and other eastern religons by western phillosophers and sanskrit schollars late 19th early 20th century , ....where upon different schools of thought adopted some aspects of Buddhist and eastern philosophies whilst leaving other cultural , monastic and religious aspects behind .

Was Buddha a secular or a religious person?

personaly I would say religious as he formed a monastic order , .....

Regards

namaskaram

 

[LuisDantas]

When did it start?

To the best of my understanding, just a few years ago, apparently as a direct result of social circunstances that made the perception of religion as a word too loaded for confort.

It is sad that it had to happen.

Was Buddha a secular or a religious person?
Regards

Religious. So is so-called secular Buddhism, apparently, but of course I don't expect its adherents to agree.

 

[von bek]

Was Buddha a secular or a religious person?
Regards

My first reaction is to say that both of those terms may have been rejected by the Buddha as a description of his teachings. Both of those words can have a variety of meanings, depending on who you are talking to. Having said that, if forced to choose, I would say 'religious' because he established a monastic order.

 

[crossfire]

When did it start? Was Buddha a secular or a religious person?
Regards

With regard to the sangha, Buddha placed restrictions on both secular and religious activities the monks and nuns could engage in. Not only were there restrictions on which religious/ritual customs they could get involved with laypersons, there were also restrictions on secular activities they could get involved in (such as discussing politics or getting involved in weddings.)

 

[Desert Snake]

'religious', and 'secular', as labels, can vary according to opinion, belief, and context. If someone memorizes many koans, that could be religious. Ceremonies, traditional, and such, could be religious. If I talk to someone about a certain type of meditation, and they are not knowledgeable to an extent that I am, or might think someone who really took meditation seriously, might be, are they non-religious? Am I ''religious'', because of that hypothetical situation? I would probably, consider myself ''religious'' in a context such as that, but only within the parameters of the subject/s/. Likewise, for other topics. Someone could be ''religious'' in one aspect, and secular in another, imo. Who is making these distinctions in definition? Are the distinctions 'accurate', or appropriate, for everyone.

 

[George-ananda]

I am hearing many terms bandied about , ..Secular Buddhism , Moddern Buddhism , ...material Buddhism , ...

please could some one explain what these terms mean , ....and what relationship they hold with the schools of Traditional Buddhism ?

My personal impression are that these are Buddhism interpretations created by those attracted to modern western materialist-atheism. I believe these schools all consider themselves atheistic even in the non-dual sense.

 

[ratikala]

My personal impression are that these are Buddhism interpretations created by those attracted to modern western materialist-atheism. I believe these schools all consider themselves atheistic even in the non-dual sense.

and prehaps Science based Atheism and its identification with the study of material nature causes it to exclude all but that which material evidence can be found to quantify , .....

therefore the tendancy to inturpret Buddhism to support materialist theories translating anatta as No Self as apposed to Not Self , .......and to dissregard the doctrine of the two truths , conventional realities and ultimate reality and recognising only conventional or material realities , .....

this tendancy to deny anything beyond what can be conventionalty perceived , in my mind strips Buddhism of its motivation to attain Buddhahood a state of all knowing , infavor of improving society , this seems some what to fly in the face of the teachings of the Buddha , .....

if there is nothing beyond then there are no victors , .....no Buddhi and no Buddhas , ...

''the secret three of every victor '' ; ''the mystery of Body , speach and mind of every one of the countless Buddhas''

Je Tsongkapa .....Principle Teachings of Buddhism , ......by saying this we are to realise the Buddhas to be the ''Victors'' those who have overcome the two obsticals of ignorance and wrong veiw , ......

the true Buddha renounces this material world even renouncing the desire to improve what he realises is imperminant and un satisfactory .

I am actualy begining to come to the realisation that the obsession with science and the study of material nature is actualy completely un Buddhist .

I am not meaning that we should not use material benifits for the betterment of society , but what I am saying is that to focus only upon this is materialistic therefore un Buddhist as it dissregards the ultimate goal .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram deciple ji

'religious', and 'secular', as labels, can vary according to opinion, belief, and context. If someone memorizes many koans, that could be religious. Ceremonies, traditional, and such, could be religious. If I talk to someone about a certain type of meditation, and they are not knowledgeable to an extent that I am, or might think someone who really took meditation seriously, might be, are they non-religious? Am I ''religious'', because of that hypothetical situation? I would probably, consider myself ''religious'' in a context such as that, but only within the parameters of the subject/s/. Likewise, for other topics.

agreed it is not an easy one to difine to the acceptance of all prople , if trying to simply define religion or religious I would have to say that 'Religion' is a set system of belifs that a person ascribes to , ...and to be 'Religious' would be to dedicate onself to the study of a set doctrine , ascribe to the principles of that religion and to as in Buddhism take refuge in the objects of faith .

Someone could be ''religious'' in one aspect, and secular in another, imo.

as to me being religious means that one follows 'Religiously' (without deviation) , there is a strong element of surrender , .....Secular Buddism in many respects selects some portions of Dharma and aplies it to material life , there have been many instances in my life where I have come across groups who utilise some forms of Buddhist meditation for purposes which seem relevant at that moment but do not use these forms of meditation as part of a structured path to realisation ,
interesting that you bring up Zen , ...many times in the past it has been questioned as to whether Zen is a religion a phylosoply or if it is truely Buddhism , ...this is a strange asertation as although it has developed its own methodology it still concerns it self with the same question of awakening , ...whether we call it liberation . moksha or awakening it is still a path with an end goal of enlightenment in the traditional sence of going beyond the material realm or mundane existance .

Secular Buddhism where I have come across it seems far more concerned with the here and now , ....

Who is making these distinctions in definition? Are the distinctions 'accurate', or appropriate, for everyone.

this discussion was sparked by the conversation over the differences of opinion between Sam Harris and Depak Chopra , ...

I think the definitions only become relevent when the adherents of new Secular Buddhism starts to reject principles accepted by the traditional religious adherants .

to me Secular Buddhism seems to align it self with what can be scientificaly proven therefore concentrates its attention upon material life , attempting to improve personal wellbeing and quality of life within society as a whole , ...whilst this is admirable , ... to a more traditional Buddhist this is merely performing ones duties within the material world , something which should be done without the negation of the Higher Goal of enlightenment .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram George Ananda ji

My personal impression are that these are Buddhism interpretations created by those attracted to modern western materialist-atheism. I believe these schools all consider themselves atheistic even in the non-dual sense.

it is poingiant that you also include the Atheist leanings which seem prevailant in much Secular Buddhism or western takes on Buddhism , personaly I feel that a majority of these Atheistic tendancies come from a missunderstanding of Buddhism in relation to Theism . the western mind tends quite naturaly to think of Theism in terms of Christianity and cant ajust it self to Dharmic thought so reject much of the traditional beleif and fall back on to only what can be scientificaly proven . this is sad and some what limiting as it rules out any understanding of absolute or ultimate realities and concentrates solely upon the conventional , ....to me this flies in the face of the doctrine of two truths .

 

[LuisDantas]

My personal impression are that these are Buddhism interpretations created by those attracted to modern western materialist-atheism. I believe these schools all consider themselves atheistic even in the non-dual sense.

Interesting. I have something of a complementar yet opposite view: the differentiation between "materialist-atheism" and whatever the alternative is supposed to be has only settled itself in recent centuries, and the unfortunately misnamed "Secular Buddhism" is one of several movements aimed to rescue the worth of religious movements that lost some of their way into superstition and misguided adherence to blind tradition.

 

[Kirran]

I think that the Buddha really did preach that the existence or not of deities in any way, shape or form, and the nature of reality as monistic, dualistic, etc, was irrelevant to his teachings, and that these were issues which it was inadvisable to get overly involved in, as this would distract followers and keep them attached.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting. I have something of a complementar yet opposite view: the differentiation between "materialist-atheism" and whatever the alternative is supposed to be has only settled itself in recent centuries, and the unfortunately misnamed "Secular Buddhism" is one of several movements aimed to rescue the worth of religious movements that lost some of their way into superstition and misguided adherence to blind tradition.

Well to me, the key issue is whether or not consciousness can exist without a physical brain; particularly our consciousness continuing after death. Those that answer 'No' or 'I don't know' to this question, apply Buddhist teachings to just this physical plane. Those that answer 'Yes' to the question apply Buddhist principles and teachings over a much grander scale of planes and time.

To me, the 'No' people are who I think of as Secular Buddhists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well to me, the key issue is whether or not consciousness can exist without a physical brain; particularly our consciousness continuing after death. Those that answer 'No' or 'I don't know' to this question, apply Buddhist teachings to just this physical plane. Those that answer 'Yes' to the question apply Buddhist principles and teachings over a much grander scale of planes and time.

To me, the 'No' people are who I think of as Secular Buddhists.

I guess I will never agree that those are important or even desirable issues to consider.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well to me, the key issue is whether or not consciousness can exist without a physical brain; particularly our consciousness continuing after death. Those that answer 'No' or 'I don't know' to this question, apply Buddhist teachings to just this physical plane. Those that answer 'Yes' to the question apply Buddhist principles and teachings over a much grander scale of planes and time.

To me, the 'No' people are who I think of as Secular Buddhists.

That just makes it another run of the mill religion.

If speculation and preclusionary views were the forte of Buddhist practices, I might as well had just stayed with Chritsianity in principle.

 

[atanu]

Well to me, the key issue is whether or not consciousness can exist without a physical brain; particularly our consciousness continuing after death. Those that answer 'No' or 'I don't know' to this question, apply Buddhist teachings to just this physical plane. Those that answer 'Yes' to the question apply Buddhist principles and teachings over a much grander scale of planes and time.

To me, the 'No' people are who I think of as Secular Buddhists.

If a person can maintain unceasing mindfulness, then the knowledge of other aspects of dharma, namely of karma, samsara, and rebirth of ego-selves, etc. might not be required. But I think unceasing mindfulness is the pinnacle of achievement, attained only by the Buddhas. So, right knowledge is of value for most Buddhists.

Now, which Buddhist school denies the paramarthika (absolute-eternal) nature of chitta (mind)?

So, if it is said that a credo of secular buddhism is: ".....Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world......", then IMO, it is not Buddhism in its core. It is analogous to Charvaka philosophy of Buddha's time.

 

[George-ananda]

I guess I will never agree that those are important or even desirable issues to consider.

So, what then do you see as to what distinguishes Secular Buddhism? To me it seems like the lack of anything that would colloquially be called supernatural or paranormal.