what is Secular Buddhism ?

[ratikala]

namaskaram

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.

this was the experiencial knowledge of the Budddha in which countless generations have taken in faith , if we were to follow secular Buddhism's recomendations even to put forward the Idea of release being possible might come under the heading of conjecture , .....

If we are to rule out faith we rule out the principle of Refuge , as what we take refuge in is Buddhi it self (the revelation of the Buddha) , and we take refuge in , and trust that revelation untill the point of our own realisation , therefore there must be an element of faith and trust in what is beyond the scientificaly proven and beyond that which we clasify as the material realm .

this brings us back to the question of universal consciousness , and the question of what Luis is calling individuality
, ....

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.

to me individuality in this sence is a state of Ignorance , .....and to deny universal consciousness (not that that is the best way of describing it , ..) is to deny all else but Ignorance , ....in which case we are eternaly traped in the cycle of birth and death .

this takes us on to ther being an eternal unborn , .......uncomprehensable untill realised truth .

 

[LuisDantas]

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 .

I am left wondering if we are dealing with translation trouble. Concepts do not cease to be concepts for such a reason.

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

That is demonstrably not true, but I assume you want to use some other word instead of "concept".

this was the experiencial knowledge of the Budddha in which countless generations have taken in faith , if we were to follow secular Buddhism's recomendations even to put forward the Idea of release being possible might come under the heading of conjecture , .....

Perhaps, but less so than the alternative. Which is not recommended by the Buddha in the first place. You surely remember the Kalama Sutta?

If we are to rule out faith we rule out the principle of Refuge , as what we take refuge in is Buddhi it self (the revelation of the Buddha) , and we take refuge in , and trust that revelation untill the point of our own realisation , therefore there must be an element of faith and trust in what is beyond the scientificaly proven and beyond that which we clasify as the material realm .

Faith and refuge are supposed to receive more respect than it would take to describe them as relying on supernaturalism, IMO.

this brings us back to the question of universal consciousness , and the question of what Luis is calling individuality
, ....

to me individuality in this sence is a state of Ignorance , .....and to deny universal consciousness (not that that is the best way of describing it , ..) is to deny all else but Ignorance , ....in which case we are eternaly traped in the cycle of birth and death .

this takes us on to ther being an eternal unborn , .......uncomprehensable untill realised truth .

So you do understand it at some level, after all.

 

[atanu]

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.

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

The whole edifice of karma and dukkha falls down if only demonstarble aspects are to be adhered to. This point distinguishes chArvAka materialist philosophers from Buddha.

But I understand that it is futile to point this out and so I withdraw.

 

[LuisDantas]

The whole edifice of karma and dukkha falls down if only demonstarble aspects are to be adhered to. This point distinguishes chArvAka materialist philosophers from Buddha.

But I understand that it is futile to point this out and so I withdraw.

Seeing how so many people have little if any trouble fruitfully using the concepts without needing undemonstrable aspects, yes, it does look a bit futile to just say that it is not possible without presenting a reason why.

As for Charvaka, there is no obvious reason why it can't be similar to Buddhism.

 

[atanu]

Seeing how so many people have little if any trouble fruitfully using the concepts without needing undemonstrable aspects, yes, it does look a bit futile to just say that it is not possible without presenting a reason why.

That people with incorrect knowledge are fruitfully using Buddhism is your view.

As for Charvaka, there is no obvious reason why it can't be similar to Buddhism.

There are many many reasons. Let me give only two here:

First. Because Buddha refuted Charvakism, which taught "with death all is annhilated".

Second. The inevitable outcome of materialism and a belief of citta not continuing beyond body is the following credo of Charvakism:

The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste... while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath... the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha.

A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.

—Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12 [52]

There is nothing wrong with above of course ....

 

[von bek]

What we have here, Ratikala, is several secular Buddhists, not only claiming to not know what secular Buddhism is, attacking regular Buddhists for having faith and belief. It would be amusing if it were not so incessant.......

May I ask why you are constantly attacking people? I have faith. I have never claimed the label, secular.

 

[von bek]

The biggest problem in this thread is that there is an effort to sever practicing Buddhists from their own religious tradition. It is an attempt to delegitimize people without ever having to grapple with what is being said. The fact that I have only said things that the Burmese teachers in my own tradition have taught, makes it even more laughable when I see people talking about the misconceptions of Western Buddhists. (Made even more hilarious because some of these accusations are coming from other Westerners.)

 

[George-ananda]

As for Charvaka, there is no obvious reason why it can't be similar to Buddhism.

Maybe consider changing your personal identification to 'Charvaka' instead of Buddhism (I am actually serious). From the (admittedly little) reading I've done that discusses differences between these two schools your personal positions decidedly take the 'Charvaka' side of the disagreements.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe consider changing your personal identification to 'Charvaka' instead of Buddhism (I am actually serious). From the (admittedly little) reading I've done that discusses differences between these two schools your personal positions decidedly take the 'Charvaka' side of the disagreements.

Perhaps. But from a practical standpoint, there would not be a lot of benefit at the current circunstances. It is sort of difficult to learn about Charvaka these days.

Besides, Atanu has just convinced me that Charvaka is not at all similar to my beliefs, although I will grant that it is not a done and settled matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will let you know when I want you to be my Guru, Atanu.

That people with incorrect knowledge are fruitfully using Buddhism is your view.

I am pretty certain that I have neither said such a thing, nor given you permission to decide what my views are. But what do I know? It is, after all, my view, so why would I know it better than you do?

There are many many reasons. Let me give only two here:

First. Because Buddha refuted Charvakism, which taught "with death all is annhilated".

A reference would be welcome, but in any case, you should be well aware by now that people should make their own minds on those matters.

Even taking for granted that what you say is strictly accurate and true, there is no sense in just accepting the words at face value without reflection and personal investigation.

Second. The inevitable outcome of materialism and a belief of citta not continuing beyond body is the following credo of Charvakism:

Depending on how one interprets things exactly, even "materialism" (which, I have learned, is quite the loaded word when used in these threads) does not deny that citta does, in fact, transcend bodies - mainly by transcending individuals, as already pointed out, which is a necessary and logical consequence of Interdependent Origination.

In any case, I reject your authority to decide what the inevitable outcomes would be...

The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste... while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath... the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha.

A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.

—Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12 [52]

There is nothing wrong with above of course ....

... and here is why. You can't seriously make such a claim. Or, at the very least, expect me to accept it as sensible.

If you truly think that such a credo is an "inevitable consequence", well, then I think you owe it to yourself to either learn more about Interdependent Origination or be more careful before speaking about Buddhism and/or "materialism". It seems to me that you are much too attached to ideas of supernatural afterlives.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Von bek ji

The biggest problem in this thread is that there is an effort to sever practicing Buddhists from their own religious tradition.

As this thread was started by my question ''What is Secular Buddhism ? let me explain the reason for posting this thread , .....

Firstly I would not want to sever any practicing Buddhist from his or her tradition , .....what is in question is the formation of new traditions who question the validity and values of others of older established Traditions .

It is an attempt to delegitimize people without ever having to grapple with what is being said.

on my part there is no attempt to ''delegitimise'' any one person , I am simply asking about the legitimacy of a relitively recently formed splinter group , ..there is no reason for any traditional Buddhist to take any points raised in relation to Secular Buddhism personaly .
the question is about what I fear may be taking the empasis away from the traditional practice of nonattatchment to this material life , and away from the traditional aim of the atainment of a state of enlightenment , .....and placing the empasiss upon personal wellbeing and improving the general quality of material life .
Please remember that in my lifetime I have seen many attempts to re write Buddhism for the western mind , which in many instances treats meditation as little more than a form of stress releif , and mind training as usefull tool for self improvement , to me this over empasis on the self and upon improving the quality of material life seems just a little contradictory to traditional aims .

even if we consider that there are practitioners of different scopes , ....the three scopes as I was taught them being

1) ....The personal wish to escape from the Lower Realms .
2) ....The wish to escape entirely from the Cycle of Birth and Death .
3) ....The wish to attain Enlightenment for the sake of all Sentient Beings .

I am not quite sure where Secular Buddhism feels that it fits in with such motivations ?

The fact that I have only said things that the Burmese teachers in my own tradition have taught, makes it even more laughable when I see people talking about the misconceptions of Western Buddhists. (Made even more hilarious because some of these accusations are coming from other Westerners.)

very much so , ...and I could laugh too (except it seams some what insencitive) it seems saddly ironic , as it would appear that Western Buddhists fall into two camps , those in the west who feel that the traditional schools have some specific truth to offer and who surrender them selves to the study of an exact tradition , ...and those who feel that they being interlectualy advanced are qualified to re write Traditional Buddhism and take out the difficult and distastefull bits like surrender of the ego and the letting go of various other attatchments , ....

Lyndon said: ↑
What we have here, Ratikala, is several secular Buddhists, not only claiming to not know what secular Buddhism is, attacking regular Buddhists for having faith and belief. It would be amusing if it were not so incessant.......

May I ask why you are constantly attacking people? I have faith. I have never claimed the label, secular.

is there any reason to think that this remark as adressed at you ?

after all you openly support refuge there for support faith , .....

I think the problem here and by here I mean RF in general , is that some Mahayanaists have suffered repeated attacks ,

all I ask is that we all respect each othes traditions especialy the established traditions which support refuge in the three jewels , .....

and I quote your signature , ....

Buddham saranam gacchami
Dhammam saranam gacchami
Sangham saranam gacchami
​

What has been very hurtfull to some members here , My self included is being told I am , or we are not Buddhist , because Mine ot their tradition of Buddhism dosent fit with anothers idea of Buddhism , what is also causing insurmountable problems is when some through not understanding and often from fear assume that they know what another beleives and that they are at total odds when in truth they are not , .....

surely we should not be in the business of attacking eachother , what is more important is to rejoice in the diversity of true Dharma traditions , ...if we continue to argue and suspect attack from eachother then we condem our selves to suffer the very hellish conditions that the Buddha tries to liberate us from , .....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Luis ji

I am left wondering if we are dealing with translation trouble. Concepts do not cease to be concepts for such a reason.

Hee Hee , .....yes true words are concept bound in that we hold a general idea of what we think something to mean ,

but no I dont think it is a translation problem , ...
let us look at the common usage of the word , ...

Oxford English Dictionary , .....An abstract idea .
Oxford US English Dictionart , ....An abstract idea; a general notion:

from Conception , .....The forming or devising of a plan or idea:

I am talking about the experiencial knowledge of an enlightened Buddha ,

sattva does not 'form' it is self existing , therefore it dose not need to be 'devised' or 'created'

That is demonstrably not true, but I assume you want to use some other word instead of "concept".

No , ...I specificaly chose the word concept , because Concept is someting created there is an element of conjecture present , ....where as Direct Knowledge is something very different , especialy the Direct Knowledge of a Buddha as it is perfectly perceived .

So , .....

''if their (meaning a Buddha or an enlightened being) direct experience is pased on it is not a concept but a revalation of phenomena not comonly recignised .'' ....meaning Sattva the true esence of all phenomena when realised by a pure being is not Concept , Not conjrcture , .......

Perhaps, but less so than the alternative. Which is not recommended by the Buddha in the first place. You surely remember the Kalama Sutta?

Jai Jai , .....commonly condensed to look not at the word but at the meaning , ......
and Ironicaly one of the most often missquoted of sayings attributed to the Buddha , ....as people keep using it to justify their own point .

Faith and refuge are supposed to receive more respect than it would take to describe them as relying on supernaturalism, IMO.

a person of faith does not regard what the sceptic calls supernatural to be what he sees as an object of Refuge , that object of refuge is the personification or embodiment of truth and actuality , .....super natural is just a term used by the unenlightened for what the enlightened realise to be ultimate reality .

So you do understand it at some level, after all.

Hmmm yes there are many things that I understand on many levels , .....it is just that some people dont seem to be as interested in asking what another understands , ... as they are at telling a person what they think ????

 

[Twilight Hue]

What we have here, Ratikala, is several secular Buddhists, not only claiming to not know what secular Buddhism is, attacking regular Buddhists for having faith and belief. It would be amusing if it were not so incessant.......

I'd like to know what defines a "regular" Buddhist. It's telling.

 

[Lyndon]

Part of a long standing Buddhist tradition, is that so hard to understand.

 

[atanu]

I will let you know when I want you to be my Guru, Atanu.

Is there need for such comments?

I am pretty certain that I have neither said such a thing, nor given you permission to decide what my views are. But what do I know? It is, after all, my view, so why would I know it better than you do?

A reference would be welcome, but in any case, you should be well aware by now that people should make their own minds on those matters.

Even taking for granted that what you say is strictly accurate and true, there is no sense in just accepting the words at face value without reflection and personal investigation.

Depending on how one interprets things exactly, even "materialism" (which, I have learned, is quite the loaded word when used in these threads) does not deny that citta does, in fact, transcend bodies - mainly by transcending individuals, as already pointed out, which is a necessary and logical consequence of Interdependent Origination.

In any case, I reject your authority to decide what the inevitable outcomes would be...

... and here is why. You can't seriously make such a claim. Or, at the very least, expect me to accept it as sensible.

If you truly think that such a credo is an "inevitable consequence", well, then I think you owe it to yourself to either learn more about Interdependent Origination or be more careful before speaking about Buddhism and/or "materialism". It seems to me that you are much too attached to ideas of supernatural afterlives.

You have written a long post filled with irrelevant asides, often touching on the personal.

Whereas, the point I make is that Buddha rejected charvaka-s of his time, in response to your comment "As for Charvaka, there is no obvious reason why it can't be similar to Buddhism."

 

[Lyndon]

As I remember it the Kalama sutta was aimed at healthy skepticism of the theories of the Kalamas, not skepticism of the teachings of the Buddha, the Buddha's teachings were not the intended target of the sutta.

 

[von bek]

As I remember it the Kalama sutta was aimed at healthy skepticism of the theories of the Kalamas, not skepticism of the teachings of the Buddha, the Buddha's teachings were not the intended target of the sutta.

As you allude to, the audience in the discourse are not Buddhists themselves. (Which is important to keep in mind.) The Buddha teaches in response to being asked by them how they can determine which teachers speak the truth and which don't. The scenario given is that the Kalamas have been swarmed by brahmins and religious teachers, all saying contradictory things. They ask the Buddha for advice on how to even start the process of discerning a good teacher.

Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

 

[Lyndon]

That's why the sutta is addressed to the Kalamas, not to the Buddhists.