what is Secular Buddhism ?

[LuisDantas]

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.

I am still puzzled and more than a bit shocked that the label has been proposed at all. Like you, I see "secular" as meaning "not religious", and therefore secular buddhism is a funny idea, almost an all-out joke far as I am concerned.

That said, your understanding is probably right. It does appear to be a proposal of ridding the doctrine from the supernatural or paranormal trappings.

And in that respect, I not only support it; I expect any self-respecting religion to do the same.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

I do think practice over 'speculation' is a part of Buddhism. But it also human nature to ponder the bigger questions; like what or if anything happens when we die. Is this life or is it not part of a grander experience of consciousness? If you are happy to not to be interested in these questions (or believe in materialism) then Secular Buddhism might work for you.

 

[atanu]

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.

From what Ratikala posted I see that one important credo is "Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world."

IMO, that is not Buddhism. Much of Buddha's teachings are realisable subjectively and they also draw from concepts of karma and samsara, which include aspects that are not demonstrable.

 

[George-ananda]

I expect any self-respecting religion to do the same.

Why?

 

[George-ananda]

I am still puzzled and more than a bit shocked that the label has been proposed at all. Like you, I see "secular" as meaning "not religious", and therefore secular buddhism is a funny idea, almost an all-out joke far as I am concerned.

What labels do you propose using?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why?

Because supernaturalism is morally, and therefore religiously, counter-productive IMO.

Maybe that was not the case when our technological level was lesser. I really don't know.

 

[LuisDantas]

What labels do you propose using?

Judaism has Humanistic Judaism.

I suppose Humanistic Buddhism or Naturalistic Buddhism or even non-Supernaturalistic Buddhism would all serve the purpose.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anyw


From what Ratikala posted I see that one important credo is "Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world."

IMO, that is not Buddhism. Much of Buddha's teachings are realisable subjectively and they also draw from concepts of karma and samsara, which include aspects that are not demonstrable.

That may well be, although that is arguable.

It still follows that it makes sense to reference demonstrable aspects and to overall favor a naturalistic view.

It just is just plain more rational, reasonable and safer.

Also, I want to respectfully point out that referencing demonstrable events does not imply all-out denial of non-demonstrable ones. It does suggest a desire not to rely on those, which I can only welcome and commend.

What secular buddhism is in practice I can't say. I never researched them much.

 

[George-ananda]

Because supernaturalism is morally, and therefore religiously, counter-productive IMO.

But if one believes some things colloquially called 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' exist, then one would be a reality denier to not consider these things in their worldview.

Maybe that was not the case when our technological level was lesser. I really don't know.

To me, technology explains details well but answers none of the bigger questions. People too attached to science/technology often develop a pride where they claim everything can fit inside this box (materialism). I see them just having an antagonistic (rather than a healthy open-minded skeptical) attitude towards anything that seems to be outside the box.

 

[George-ananda]

Judaism has Humanistic Judaism.

I suppose Humanistic Buddhism or Naturalistic Buddhism or even non-Supernaturalistic Buddhism would all serve the purpose.

I think the third one is best; 'non-Supernaturalistic Buddhism'. Who is not a Humanist?-that would not tell us much.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the third one is best; 'non-Supernaturalistic Buddhism'. Who is not a Humanist?-that would not tell us much.

That is part of the point

 

[LuisDantas]

But if one believes some things colloquially called 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' exist, then one would be a reality denier to not consider these things in their worldview.

Believing in the supernatural and relying on it are different degrees of reliance on the concept. I don't think the second is ever advisable.

To me, technology explains details well but answers none of the bigger questions. People too attached to science/technology often develop a pride where they claim everything can fit inside this box (materialism).

That is a real enough danger, I suppose. In practical terms it is just not a significant problem,, far as I can see.

I see them just having an antagonistic (rather than a healthy open-minded skeptical) attitude towards anything that seems to be outside the box.

If they do, they are not being very wise and at least arguably it would be even worse if they believed in the supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

That is part of the point

But that would continue the confusion/lack of clarity and endless debates. It is better to clarify the distinction.

 

[LuisDantas]

But that would continue the confusion/lack of clarity and endless debates. It is better to clarify the distinction.

Clarifying it involves emphasizing that it is not meant to be a significant restriction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

From what Ratikala posted I see that one important credo is "Secular Buddhism is naturalistic, in that it references natural causes and effects, demonstrable in the known world."

IMO, that is not Buddhism. Much of Buddha's teachings are realisable subjectively and they also draw from concepts of karma and samsara, which include aspects that are not demonstrable.

I don't disagree in principle, yet ambiguous whenever practicing in a type of fantasy world.

 

[von bek]

I do think practice over 'speculation' is a part of Buddhism. But it also human nature to ponder the bigger questions; like what or if anything happens when we die. Is this life or is it not part of a grander experience of consciousness?

Reading this reminds me of something the Buddha says in the Brahmajala Sutta:

"In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists, who proclaim the self and the world to be eternal?

"Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: "The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.'

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

The problem is that through pondering, a number of contradictory ideas have been put forward by people over the centuries. The Buddha speaks often about how people have been ensnared by their own philosophies. The Buddha's approach is almost an anti-philosophy. He really discourages ontological questions and obsessions as counterproductive to the spiritual path. Look at the arguments that take place among Hindus, is Vishnu or Shiva supreme? Both sides are positive about the right answer and are quick to provide their respective scriptural and logical arguments. A lot of words are said and people get mad, but no definitive answer is arrived at.

If you are happy to not to be interested in these questions (or believe in materialism) then Secular Buddhism might work for you.

Why the qualifier of "secular"? What do you make of the fact that the Buddha is recorded in the suttas as dismissing many of these "bigger" questions as wrongly put and making false assumptions? If that is secular, do you consider the Buddha himself to be secular? If not, why are people nowadays being labeled as such?

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that through pondering, a number of contradictory ideas have been put forward by people over the centuries. The Buddha speaks often about how people have been ensnared by their own philosophies. The Buddha's approach is almost an anti-philosophy. He really discourages ontological questions and obsessions as counterproductive to the spiritual path. Look at the arguments that take place among Hindus, is Vishnu or Shiva supreme? Both sides are positive about the right answer and are quick to provide their respective scriptural and logical arguments. A lot of words are said and people get mad, but no definitive answer is arrived at.

Well, there are some differences in Hinduism but a general belief is in reincarnation and that our efforts at spiritual progress gained in our hearts and minds in this life are not all reset to null by decrepitude and death. The worldview of the secular Buddhist to me bears too much resemblance to a life spent shoveling water uphill. If I believed there is just this life, I would accept that and make the best of it, but I don't believe I would find much value in serious spiritual striving.

Almost all significant religions postulate some kind of continuation in which the virtuous thoughts and actions of our lives effect a continuing future. The details of the full beliefs can be debated.

Why the qualifier of "secular"? What do you make of the fact that the Buddha is recorded in the suttas as dismissing many of these "bigger" questions as wrongly put and making false assumptions? If that is secular, do you consider the Buddha himself to be secular? If not, why are people nowadays being labeled as such?

Well, I understand and even agree with the Buddha's position on not getting overly vexed by metaphysics. But I at least need to know that the fruits of my internal gradual perfecting are not lost at death. Many say the Buddha teaches that we are in a karmic cycle and will continue being reborn until we liberate ourselves in Nirvana. And reaching Nirvana for most is a long multi-life process. My point is there is too much for us to understand but we at least need to know some basics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, there are some differences in Hinduism but a general belief is in reincarnation and that our efforts at spiritual progress gained in our hearts and minds in this life are not all reset to null by decrepitude and death.

It is my understanding that even most Hindu reincarnationists don't have quite that belief.

In any case, neither does Buddhism, at least by my understanding of it. I think you (and others) may be underestimating the true reach of the idea of Interdependent Origination.

Just because the individual does not return - and as a matter of fact, one of our goals is to stop the cycle of rebirths - it does not at all follow that our efforts are "reset to null". Quite on the contrary, actually; rebirths are a hurdle to be overcome.

Reincarnations, if I believed them to be real, would probably be very depressing indeed in this regard. They would reset a lot of good things to null if they existed, at least as proposed by Kardecist Spiritism.

The worldview of the secular Buddhist to me bears too much resemblance to a life spent shoveling water uphill. If I believed there is just this life, I would accept that and make the best of it, but I don't believe I would find much value in serious spiritual striving.

I have no reason to doubt you, but it is just not how it has to be.

Almost all significant religions postulate some kind of continuation in which the virtuous thoughts and actions of our lives effect a continuing future.

So do we. That is something of a cornerstone, even, as is to be expected.

It just turns out that this continuation has no place for the return of individual people. As, frankly, I feel to be only natural.

The details of the full beliefs can be debated.

Indeed.

Well, I understand and even agree with the Buddha's position on not getting overly vexed by metaphysics. But I at least need to know that the fruits of my internal gradual perfecting are not lost at death.

Of course they are not. One does not need to accept reincarnation to know that; one has to accept that life exists.

Many say the Buddha teaches that we are in a karmic cycle and will continue being reborn until we liberate ourselves in Nirvana. And reaching Nirvana for most is a long multi-life process. My point is there is too much for us to understand but we at least need to know some basics.

The basics as I understand it are "we all suffer and inflict complex chains of cause and consequence upon each other" and "therefore, it is for our best nterest to develop skill at doing the best possible thing in each and every situation".

But I suspect you are set on believing on afterlives "proper", and I assume that just will not be enough for you.

 

[von bek]

Well, I understand and even agree with the Buddha's position on not getting overly vexed by metaphysics. But I at least need to know that the fruits of my internal gradual perfecting are not lost at death. Many say the Buddha teaches that we are in a karmic cycle and will continue being reborn until we liberate ourselves in Nirvana. And reaching Nirvana for most is a long multi-life process. My point is there is too much for us to understand but we at least need to know some basics.

Luis covered your post pretty well; so, I only wanted to elaborate on something he mentioned at the end. I believe the basics the Buddha taught for us are the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination.

The Noble Truths describe the problem, its origin, its cessation, and the path leading to that cessation. They are the subject of His first discourse after awakening for a reason, I believe. They set out His thesis on what the root causes of human suffering are, His promise that there is a way to their end, and then, the path to take to do just that.

I know you see me mention dependent origination all of the time. The reason is, it is incredibly difficult to overemphasize the centrality, and the implications of dependent origination in the Buddha's teachings.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Believing in the supernatural and relying on it are different degrees of reliance on the concept. I don't think the second is ever advisable.
We will always aim to remain unbiased when applying the rules.

some people have experience of what you are calling Super Natural , so in that instance it ceases to become super natural therefore also ceases to be a concept to that person .

if their direct experience is pased on it is not a concept but a revalation of phenomena not comonly recignised .